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

Just a quick question, do you guys think the hijackers were bluffing when they said they had a bomb on board?

Here is a page with a link to the audio: www.milaircomms.com...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by talisman
The plane was shot down. That is what I believe.

If that happened, where did it crash? Look at the crater, no 757 caused that. IF Flight 93 crashed, it didn't crash there, but there would be a smoke trail miles long if it crashed elsewhere for all to see that no one saw.

There is just no hard evidence that any plane crashed in or around the area.

Originally posted by kix
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.

That was the crash I was thinking of earlier, but couldn't remember the exact details.

The photos/footage are of a crater allegedly caused by a 757 crashing straight down into the ground. This is also the official story.

Problems:

* Where is the debris?
* Why go to the trouble of fabricating (IMHO) telephone calls to add to the credibility of it crashing, only for no hard evidence to show up?


Assume it was shot down.

Problems:

* Why does the official story say it crashed?
* Where is the debris?
* Why would the US government ignore a great PR opportunity (they got fighters in the air and they defended the USA against terrorists), if that was true?
* Where are the pilot(s) that would have been involved? Surely they would have received public commendation for taking a very tough decision in light of events on that day (shooting down a civilian airliner).


Because of those points above, I don't think it crashed or was shot down. There is just a complete lack of any evidence of an aircraft.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

What a near-vertical crash site looks like:

www.airdisaster.com...

let me get this right , you ask a question , post 4 pictures and
think youve come up with a smoking gun ?
it's called google , use it . PLEASE !

This was one of the first things that raised a question for me. It's truly hard to believe that the ground swallowed an entire plane!!! Between this and the missing plane at the Pentagon. There should be parts everywhere!!! Yet, there is nothing. Does anyone have a good link to any photos of parts from this plane crash??

Originally posted by Vinadetta
This was one of the first things that raised a question for me. It's truly hard to believe that the ground swallowed an entire plane!!! Between this and the missing plane at the Pentagon. There should be parts everywhere!!! Yet, there is nothing. Does anyone have a good link to any photos of parts from this plane crash??

Swallows it up, and then seal-seals itself:



But it doesn't look like some burrowed, but that something bounced and that's what the official story is trying to tell us happened, that, get this, the "cockpit broke off" and bounced and shattered into the forest:

“Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle. He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.” - Pittsburghlive.com (05/30/02)

killtown.blogspot.com...

So we are supposed to believe that UA93 came screaming down at 580mph and it's cockpit broke off and bounce then disintegrated into the forest, yet the rest of the plane burrows into the ground!

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Killtown]

If you look at the two photos here:

911research.wtc7.net...

...that doesn't look like a plane hit there.



What's THAT supposed to be?? And........

"...The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.” - Pittsburghlive.com (05/30/02)

Huh?!?!?!?!?!?! If that's 8 acres, I'm selling my house!

911research.wtc7.net...



Look at the first pic. This is a supposed aircraft crash site, and crime scene. What are those guys doing in the background, and what is burning to produce white smoke???

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Anyway you look at it, there is no 757 in those pictures. The worst ground disapareance of an Airplane was ValueJet that crashed in florida swamp, because of the soft mud and the md/dc9 crashing nose first at over 450mph, and even it that horrible accident most parts could be recovered (well digged), in this case even if it was shot down, the ammount of debris or parts would have been a lot.

Now the problem with accepting this tragedy and also the one on the Pentagon and accepting that NO 757 were involved in one or the two instances, som equestions arise:

If it was more difficult not to shot down those planes or crash it (in the pentagon case), why misleading everyone?, certanly in my view is more logical to crash those planes than, using decoys or whatever and disapear the real planes with REAL people inside...why was the purpose?
My theory is that some things far more sinister happened that dreadful 9/11, and all this big show is just one way to keep us whatching the wrong hand of the magician, that the real purpose of 9/11 is unfolding latelly and was not exactly just a "terror attack".

my .02

As I mentioned previously, I don't think Flight 93 existed.

* UA confirmed early that day that it had landed safely at Cleveland
* 2 aircraft were spotted landing at Cleveland, the other being DAL1989.
* Flight 93 requested (?!?!) a flight plan change *AFTER* it was allegedly hijacked.

I'm still trying to get sources together for the above points.

vs.

Flight 93 crashed.

* Where's the evidence?
* Dodgy photo to back up claims of crash

Flight 93 was shot down

* Where's the evidence?


I think a 757 did crash into the Pentagon. Too many witnesses to seeing a jet, even though there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in their stories about how it approached/crashed.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

ok does the "piece of engine" that is next to the backhoe in the picture a bit familiar to a piece of wreckage found at the pentagon

im gonna try to locate that picture but im sure someone else knows what im speaking of. its a clearly distinguishable large gear made of metal. i can swear i have seen that in the wreckage of pentagon. please someone confirm this.

ok does the "piece of engine" that is next to the backhoe in the picture a bit familiar to a piece of wreckage found at the pentagon

That's probably because the aircraft were both 757's.

Originally posted by Killtown
The ONLY explanation that no large plane crashed there is ... no large plane crashed there!

Truism alert! Prove the first and indeed the second follows. You have not done the first yet...
so we see one of two engines (backhoe or no, is it the right size or the wrong size?) and that doesn't count as a sizeable chunk? And again that's all we've [i[seen. No plane means this was planted - and no one would notice or report the large pre-planting operation happening at tht very spot some time before 9/11? That would sure look suspicious to me.

GRANTED, the photos are counter-intuitive in the extreme, with no wreckage at all visible. But after learning of the odd nature fof the soil there and seeing the burnt woods in relation to the flight path, my best guess is that about 80% of the plane, the heavier parts, buried themselves in the giant sandbox while Lighter pieces mostly wound up in the woods, on account of a good hurtling by the exlosion and any leftover plane trajectory. I know it's not as much fun, and no good for proving any inside job conspiracy (which I do still believe in), and it's just a guess with honestly very little research. But in my mind makes sense and is the single most logical explanation. Keep trying to prove me wrong, I'm all ears...

Originally posted by kix
If it was more difficult not to shot down those planes or crash it (in the pentagon case), why misleading everyone?, certanly in my view is more logical to crash those planes than, using decoys or whatever and disapear the real planes with REAL people inside...why was the purpose?
My theory is that some things far more sinister happened that dreadful 9/11, and all this big show is just one way to keep us whatching the wrong hand of the magician, that the real purpose of 9/11 is unfolding latelly and was not exactly just a "terror attack".

my .02

I'm not sure I get just what you're saying here, but it seems an interesting point from the perspective of our past dealings. It almost sounds like you're coming around on the no-planes shell game? On closer reading, it seems not. Anyway, one can only hope.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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!

Agreed, i think it exploded due to being hit by a couple of Air to Airs or possibly Ground to Airs (SAM's)

Yeah, I mean I'm a bit outta the loop, but last I heard there was some good evidence for a shoot-down. Wasn't the white smoke call from Ed felt covered up in the movie (still haven't seen it)? Rumsfeld's "slip" about shooting it down is crap for evidence, as are his other "slips," but otherwise a half-decent case, not that I bought it totally. So what's with the total lack of evidence now? Ah yes, shoot-down = plane, and we are in no-plane territory here which means no shoot-down.

I'm sure you've covered it all, KT, but now I'm curious where the plane did go, and how this crime scene was faked - and yet the fakery was so unconvincing you can use photos of it to prove your point. I'll have to go back and read more carefully for the answers...

Assuming that the bomb the terrorists claimed they had was real, and was detonated pre-impact (as was suggested above), then it is going to be in no shape to burrow into the ground and completely disappear the way it allegedly did.

Equally, if it was shot down, it certainly isn't going to be burrowing into the ground the way it allegedly did.

COMMENT REMOVED DUE TO SENSITIVE (SECURITY) NATURE.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Agreed mostly. This is fairly compact, about on the scale of a 757. It looks like it just burrowed in there in about one piece, the rest scattered.

But... We've only seen one engine, the other coulda been the one that was shot and landed far away, the (right?) wing would be scattered for a few miles, also not photographed). Or it coulda been the one found there too but not photographed.

In short, shoot-down not disproven but looking less likely

I'm totally not buying the no-plane aspect. If they went thru that kinda work to bury the parts, they'd probably leave more above ground too to make te psyop work. Instead we get a realistsic but initially confusing scene.

Did someone decide to crash it or shoot it down right there so it would "disappear" and create a vacuum for discrediting theories? Like they seem to have done at the Pentagon?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

COMMENT REMOVED DUE TO SENSITIVE (SECURITY) NATURE.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

That gives me the spooks. I hope that doesn't start popping up in my posts. Or hope it does? MoD knows some stuff it seems.

So, if there are loads of parts that are just burried into the ground, did they ever excavate the scene and actually dig up those parts? I would love to see some parts that they dug out of the ground. Or did they just leave all the parts and they are still burried under the ground.

All the photos that I've seen, I still don't see a whole lot of evidence of a giant plane crashing into the ground. Both of the engines are massive, and it's hard for me to believe that they evaporated. In the photos in the other plane crashes it looks like there were bits and pieces of stuff everywhere, paper and everything else.