Where is the '80% of Flight 93' in the crater?

If 80% of Flight 93 burrowed underground, then surely you'd see big chuncks of the plane and/or thousands of shredded bits of metal in the crater while they were excavating it, so why do you only see dirt?

Hi-res:

< br />






more photos


The only photo that shows debris in the crater while excavating is the one with the small engine scrap that fit in their backhoe bucket that they just lowered down for a photo-op:



[edit on 15-4-2007 by Killtown]

They argued that it disintegrated with the heat from the inferno.

Good question. Whilst it isn't going to look much like an aircraft coming back out, you're definitely going to have *something* coming out of there, that is going to be quite sizable. We're not talking lots of tiny shredded pieces of aluminum.

After seeing its flight path being virtually on top of an airfield (where Delta 1989 diverted to), and the reports of TWO aircraft on the airfield along with the initial confirmation from United that Flight 93 had landed there safely, I do seriously doubt whether Flight 93 actually crashed at all.

Its extremely odd I think, where in the hell is the plane wreckage. I don't buy it.

Two alternative ideas i have about this briefly:

a: Perhaps the hijackers weren't lying when they said they had a bomb onboard and it was detonated just before/after the crash either locally or remotely. I wonder if they really did have a bomb perhaps someone else had control over the detonation.

Either that or it may of been shot down by f-16s and/or perhaps finished off with a rocket after it had crashed thus destroying the wreckage, and public information was whitewashed. If an order was given to shoot it down then a whitewash could of been anticipated.


[edit on 15-4-2007 by Insolubrious]

I think this plane exploded in mid air.
There's no other explanation....

Although, having 2 plans disintergrate, and 3 buildings collapse due to fire all on the same day, whats the odds of that!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think this plane exploded in mid air.
There's no other explanation....

There is simply no evidence a large aircraft blew up in mid-air. There were many eyewitnesses to the planes flying around and NONE of them witnessed anything being blowing up in mid-air.

The perps want CT's to believe to it was shot down because then we'll believe it still crashed. That's why they set up perps sites like Flight93crash.com that in the end wants you to believe that "Flight 93 crash[ed]".

The ONLY explanation that no large plane crashed there is ... no large plane crashed there!

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Killtown]

Here is Rumsfield himself saying that the plane was "shot" down.


Rummy's Words

Originally posted by pahrump
Here is Rumsfield himself saying that the plane was "shot" down.

Rummy's Words

The same Rummy who said he knew where the WMD's were?

And if it was shot down, where did it crash? I didn't crash in Shanksville.

Originally posted by Killtown

I didn't crash in Shanksville.

Well if you didn't, who did? j/k

I can't believe that Rumsfelds comments would be used as a "source". Hardly credible.

EDIT: Hmmmm.... looking at the way he screwed up in monumental style (again), maybe he is credible! Is that why they got rid of him, because he can't keep a secret?

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

The debri's was spread out all over the place.
Something happened in mid air for the debri NOT to land at the main crash site.

the dent in the ground where it was reported to me, could very well of been a simple engine.

as for witnesses?

I take every witness on 911 very carefully, I mean there are some that still claim a boeing airliner hit the pentagon.

Well, from all the footage I saw of the indentation, it sure was meant to look like an airliner crashed vertically into the floor.

Surely it would look better for it to have been shot down, as it shows fighters were scrambled in light of the attacks and they succeeded thwart a terrorist attack upon the US? Surely that is a good thing? They also don't have to cover up the (lack) of evidence then, either.

I don't think it was shot down as it makes no sense to cover it up if it was. It was known that a couple of hours were spent trying to get jets in the air to do exactly that; surely a bit of credibility is required in that area of air defense?????

This is why I'm having such a problem with it; none of it adds up in one way or another, which is why I think no plane crashed or was shot down. It is the scenario with the least unanswered questions, and in fact, the backing of early news reports and UA stating Flight 93 landed safely. I'm really starting to suspect that it did, and that UA had to change its story to match the official story that was already being written.

EDIT: In fact, did any single 757s turn up in the Arizona desert shortly after 9/11??? If you don't know the significance of the Arizona desert, it is where aircraft go for long-term storage if they aren't flying now, but could in future, or where the old ones are just left to rot forever.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

something hit the ground htere though,
??

It's a double edged blade.

If the government were to fabricate a crash site they could/would have done a lot better than that.

There is a debris field close to 3 miles long. This plane was shot, it lost an engine causing it to flip as was witnessed. It was uncontrollable at that point. The plane itself slammed into the ground and some hunting on the Internet will show you plenty of debris, only it is scattered over a very large area, which should not happen with the impact as it is described. The only thing fabricated is "let's roll". I am not saying it did not happen, I am jsut saying that it was glorified so no questions would be asked.

All the attention goes to the WTC. Realize that if Flight 93 would not have been delayed, there would be no Capitol building.

esdad, that sounds logical.

There definately was an impact on the ground of some kinda, an engine falling at speed would cause what I consider to be a perfect dent.

AS for the plane, it was scattered all over the place, thus why no large piece of debri was found around that 'dent '

There's a lot of things about 'lets-roll' thats suspicous.

Mainly the fellow that calls his own mother, and says

'' mom, its (firstname) (Surname) ''

as the docco says, how many times do you call your mom and pronounce your full name?

Originally posted by esdad71
There is a debris field close to 3 miles long. This plane was shot, it lost an engine causing it to flip as was witnessed. It was uncontrollable at that point. The plane itself slammed into the ground and some hunting on the Internet will show you plenty of debris, only it is scattered over a very large area, which should not happen with the impact as it is described. The only thing fabricated is "let's roll". I am not saying it did not happen, I am jsut saying that it was glorified so no questions would be asked.

No plane crashed in Shanksville or there would be a smoke trail miles long in the sky for everybody to see. Plus no witnesses reported anything blowing up in the air.

Planes don't make Wile E. Coyoted wing impression in the dirt and holes don't self-seal themselves when 100ton objects supposedly burrow down them.

And nice non-burnt grass all the way around the crater.

They found debris from 93 up to 8 miles away. There is debris, the largest piece I think was less than 10 ft but almost 1000 ibs. It crashed, but how is the question. Flight 93 was the only one that the government had time to stop, and they did. The passengers may very well have attempted to go into the cockpit.

An F-16 could take down a jet by destroying one engine with a missle, or a machine gun. If I remember correctly, the jet that would have done this did not have AAM's, but did have a nose cannon.This would explain a wide debris field.

They did not find debris 8 miles away. The muppets who quoted those figures used mapping software to calculate distances and then quoted the drive distance.

As the crow flew it was a little over a mile - just look at a map, it's not rocket science.

If ever you lot do prove any of this stuff, what exactly are you going to do with it?

I agree with Killtown.

Just go through the FAA and other countries air crash archives and read the reports. In every instance, there is a very obvious debris field, irrespective of how it crashed.

Even the space shuttle Columbia had lots more debris than this and it broke up at Mach 8 at 250,000 ft whilst burning up at the same time, with bits scattered over 4 (?) states!!!

The other problem with the official story is that, allegedly, all 80% of the aircraft came out of that single hole. Where is it? Does anyone actually have any photos of the debris being removed?

Where is the NTSB reconstruction of the airframe??

[edit on 16-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I was at the Mexicana crash site in 1986, the 727 adv-200, had a tire blew at 33000 feet (due to filling it with air and causing to expand and break the tire) blowing out the gear door and the gear door struck the engine causing it to break appart, the plane lost control flew inverted and crashed nose down nearly at sound speed.

Ther were lots of large pieces everywhere, bits and pieces of human remains, luggage all over, the missing engine and the gear door were found 3 or 4 kilometers away.

When I see these pictures and the pentagon´s, and they say a 757 crashed there I just sigh in disbelief, because the 757 is a much larger plane and their engines a lot bigger, and they seem to have vanished due to heat, impact or what have you..... A airliner crash leaves a ot of debris and a ton of wreckage, in Case of the Mexicana Flight, the plane had a lot of fuel because it was just about an hour into the flight and it had to fly to LAX for 3.5 hours.... so were is the 757..... answer...there is none...

The plane was shot down. That is what I believe.

The other official argument is that the plane crashed into very deep muddy terrain and some it was buried deep within, but I believe the plane was shot down and this explains why we see the scattering of parts.

I can't see how they identified people though. In each of the crashes I have a hard time believing they retrieved meaningful DNA. It just seems like there would be no real place to start to look and if you did find it, the quality of the DNA would not be enough to reveal a whole profile.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by talisman]