Flight 93 Explained

The official story is Flight 93 crashed in the field in Pennsylvania. A conspiracy theory is that Flight 93 was shot down. I don't think the evidence matches either theory.

So what's that leave?

To begin with, witnesses said they saw the plane coming in from the NW along Route 30. However, witness to the EAST of the crash site, near Indian Lake, also claimed they heard a plane fly overhead. This can't be true if the plane crashed at the location of the crater.

So how could witnesses to the EAST of the crash site have heard the plane? Maybe because they live right beside a hidden, 4000 foot airstrip that's about a mile EAST of the crater, but on the same flight path as was reported by witnesses WEST of the crater.

Here's the map of the area:





Close-Up of Airstrip




So if you examine this map you will see that the "hidden" airstrip is almost in a direct line of the reported flight path of Flight 93, and in a location where people near Indian Lake would have heard the plane coming in to land. This would explain the eye-witnesses WEST of the crater, and the ear-witnesses EAST of the crater.

But is there any other evidence of some type of operation that could have faked a plane crash at Shanksville?

I think so.

First, there is the C-130 Air National Guard plane that was at the crash site within 2 minutes of the alleged crash of Flight 93. This plane could have easily spread the staged debris, which was reported to have been found up to 8 miles away in New Baltimore.

Here's a map showing New Baltimore in relation to the C-130's flight path and the crash site, along with a photo of a C-130:







So as you can see, the C-130 was approaching from the SE on the direct line of the debris field which was found between the creater and New Baltimore. And you can also see the C-130 would have been a perfect choice to spread the debris based on it's ability to discharge its payload from its rear door while in the air.

So far we can explain the witnesses that both saw and heard the plane, and the debris field. But what about the crater? Something had to make the crater!

I believe witness Sue Mcelwain might explain this. This is her account of a plane she saw on 9/11 at Shanksville:

"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van. It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened. I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realized it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.

There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me.

It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side.

I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up. "But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

Does this picture match Mcelwain's description? I think so.





What Mcelwain describes fits the description of an A-10 Warthog military plane with ordinances that could have made the crater.


Here is a summary of the evidence:

* Operation Northwoods shows the government had the means to stage a hijacking and fake plane crash by landing the "crashed" plane at a secret airport while spreading fake debris.

* There is a "hidden" airport on the direct flight path of Flight 93 just over 1 mile where Flight 93 is said to have crashed.

* There are witnesses who saw and heard the plane EAST and WEST of the crater that was supposedly made by Flight 93.

* The C-130 capable of spreading the fake debris which was found as far as New Baltimore flew almost directly along the debris path.

* There was a plane fitting the description of an A-10 Warthog seen by Sue Mcelwain that was capable of firing a missile that made the crater.

* The "crash site" is inconsistent with any commerical airline crash in history. There was no evidence of ANY charred ground near the crater -only a hole in the ground with small pieces of debris.


So the question is, does the evidence show that the crash of Flight 93 was staged?

[edit on 19-5-2007 by nick7261]

The 757-200 needs about 5000-5500 feet of runway to take off though. So unless they hid it somewhere in plain sight (sorry, I had to) it would still be there. If they were going to try to fly it out of a 4000 foot long airstrip they wouldn't have the fuel to go very far, and they'd have had to land it somewhere else. Not to mention that there would have been witnesses to them flying it back OUT of the airstrip.

As for the C-130, NO ONE noticed it flying low enough to have dropped any debris out of the back of the plane.

There were also witnesses to flight 93 itself. What about them?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 757-200 needs about 5000-5500 feet of runway to take off though. So unless they hid it somewhere in plain sight (sorry, I had to) it would still be there. If they were going to try to fly it out of a 4000 foot long airstrip they wouldn't have the fuel to go very far, and they'd have had to land it somewhere else. Not to mention that there would have been witnesses to them flying it back OUT of the airstrip.

The Johnstown airport is only about 15-20 miles away. The plane people saw coming in from the NW didn't have to be a 757 or the *actual* Flight 93 that took off from Newark. That plane could have very well landed in Cleveland. The 4000+ airstrip seems long enough for a large plane to take off or land there. I'm not sure that more than 4000 feet is *required* to take off.

As for the C-130, NO ONE noticed it flying low enough to have dropped any debris out of the back of the plane.

The C-130 didn't have to be flying low to drop debris out of the rear of the plane. In fact, the debris field spreading as far SE as New Baltimore would indicate that the debris came from a high altitude.

There were also witnesses to flight 93 itself. What about them?

What witnesses? I believe only one witness said he saw the plane actually crash, and only 1 or two others said they saw the plane turn upside down. If this was a government operation, having 1-3 "witnesses" to corroborate the official story not only would be easy to plant, but would almost be a necessity.

This certainly isn't any more difficult than what was proposed in the Operation Northwoods document.

And what about the witnesses at Indian Lake, EAST of the crater, who heard the plane fly overhead? How can you selectively pick which witnesses are accurate in their recollections? What about Sue Mcelwain? Do you have any reason to doubt her credibility?

NIce theory, but you need to look into Cheney, Mineta and the 'stand down' order. Plane was shot down before it could ever enter the DC airspace. We were lucky that 93 was delayed taking off or 9/11 would have been worse.

Im amazed that once again there is a airport right near the crash site of yet another 911 hijacked airplane.

Anything less than 5000 feet and you will HAVE to land somewhere else. You simply can't carry enough fuel to fly any kind of distance. You don't REQUIRE 5000+ feet, just if you want to get any kind of distance to your flight. And if that's the case, why bother landing there? It would make more sense to land it somewhere else.

As for dropping at high altitude, the higher you drop, the less likely you are to hit the target you're going for. If you're going to fire a missile to make a crater, and then drop parts into, or right around the hole you're going to want to drop low and slow to make sure you hit near the hole. Otherwise your parts and pieces are going to go an absurd distance away from the hole. The debris that landed 8 miles away was paper and really lightweight insulation. If you drop that from the altitude the C-130 was seen at it would have gone farther than 8 miles.

As for the eyewitnesses, every time an eyewitness is used FOR the official story the response is always "Eyewitnesses are very unreliable and don't always know what they see." Or "They were either planted or told what to say." But yet when they go AGAINST the official story, they're always reliable.

Originally posted by acmeartifacts
Im amazed that once again there is a airport right near the crash site of yet another 911 hijacked airplane.

Well considering that National Airport was opened in 1941, and the Pentagon broke ground in 1941, and was dedicated in 1943 I don't think there's much there. National Airport was built as the replacement for the Washington-Hoover airport, which is where the Pentagon is now.

I think you missed my point.
I was refering to the flight path being inline with an available landing strip.

And at least two of the other landing strips that I've seen pointed out were too short for the planes involved to use. As for National it makes MORE sense for it to be near the target. Once they got close to the Pentagon they could use the airport instruments to help find the building.

Originally posted by esdad71
NIce theory, but you need to look into Cheney, Mineta and the 'stand down' order. Plane was shot down before it could ever enter the DC airspace. We were lucky that 93 was delayed taking off or 9/11 would have been worse.

There is no physical evidence or eye-witness evidence that FL 93 was shot down that I know of. Where did the wreckage go?

You also must realize that the "shot down" theory means that the entire transcript of the CVR must have been faked.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Anything less than 5000 feet and you will HAVE to land somewhere else. You simply can't carry enough fuel to fly any kind of distance. You don't REQUIRE 5000+ feet, just if you want to get any kind of distance to your flight. And if that's the case, why bother landing there? It would make more sense to land it somewhere else.

Maybe the landing strip is actually 5000 feet. I didn't measure it exactly, I just estimated the distance.

The reason to land at this landing strip is because it would have allowed a plane to be seen by witnesses coming in towards the crash site and disappearing over the hill, where it could have actually landed instead of crashed. The landing strip itself is secluded from site.

As for dropping at high altitude, the higher you drop, the less likely you are to hit the target you're going for. If you're going to fire a missile to make a crater, and then drop parts into, or right around the hole you're going to want to drop low and slow to make sure you hit near the hole.

Maybe the C-130 dropped a bomb along with a payload of debris. This way the crater and the debris would be in the exact same spot.

Otherwise your parts and pieces are going to go an absurd distance away from the hole.

You mean like 8 miles?

If you drop that from the altitude the C-130 was seen at it would have gone farther than 8 miles.

Now you're just placing speculation on top of speculation. It depends on the wind and where the C-130 would have dropped the debris.

As for the eyewitnesses, every time an eyewitness is used FOR the official story the response is always "Eyewitnesses are very unreliable and don't always know what they see." Or "They were either planted or told what to say." But yet when they go AGAINST the official story, they're always reliable.

No, that's not true. I'm saying this. There's an official story, and there are alternative theories. I'm trying to fit facts into the theories. Something doesn't add up. Either the official story is wrong or the alternative theories are wrong. The witnesses contradict both the official story and the alternative theories. I'm saying the witnesses I cited support the alternative theory, not that the alternative theory has to be 100% accurate.

This C-130 was the same c-130 that was at the Pentagon... This guy was busy on 911 huh ? Nick explain the evidence that was dug up 30 feet into the ground. or the boday parts that were discovered.

There were so MANY other airfields that were secluded or that they could have used that would have almost GUARANTEED no one would have seen the plane, and wouldn't have had eyewitnesses though. Even for a secluded airstrip around Shanksville there's too much risk of being seen. Not to mention that there isn't one witness that heard the plane leaving. The plane had to have left at some point, and people would have heard and said something about the odd sound of a heavy plane leaving that area. A 757 is rather loud at takeoff and definitely would have been noticed leaving that airstrip.

Again, the things that were noticed 8 miles away were papers and insulation material. Things that at a NORMAL crash have been found rather far away from the impact site as well.

If the C-130 dropped a bomb what would the purpose of what APPEARS to be an A-10 be there though? There wouldn't be any reason to have another plane flying around there if the C-130 was dropping everything.

The airplane parts and human remains they found 30 feet under ground still does not explain the original films taken at the time of impact that show no plane parts.
I would like someone to explain how every single recognizable part of this airplane was burried in the dirt.

This crash site shows no plane, no people, no luggage, no seats, no engines, no nothing.
For anyone to say an airplane crashed here is insane.
What ever was dug up from the dirt was clearly planted before or after the fact.

Originally posted by CameronFox
This C-130 was the same c-130 that was at the Pentagon... This guy was busy on 911 huh ? Nick explain the evidence that was dug up 30 feet into the ground. or the boday parts that were discovered.

Yes, the statistical probability that the same C-130 was at the exact location at the exact time of 2 of the 4 plane crashes on 9/11, which happened over 100 miles apart, is staggering. This is especially curious since there was a ground stoppage and an immediate landing order that this particular C-130 didn't seem to be affected by.

There is no way to verify any evidence that was dug up. Asking me, a private citizen with no access to the crash site to explain alleged evidence is silly. The same applies to the body parts.

However, if the government were going to stage a hijacking, one would presume that the planners of such an operation would think it through ahead of time and have a plan for planting body parts and debris as well. As I said, not only was the site sealed, but over 100 state troopers were positioned for 2 weeks to prevent anybody from even getting close to the site to watch what was going on. Anything could have been placed in the hole after the fact.

In short, there has never been an opportunity to challenge chain of evidence claimed by the government about the debris at the FL 93 crash site.

Originally posted by acmeartifacts
The airplane parts and human remains they found 30 feet under ground still does not explain the original films taken at the time of impact that show no plane parts.
I would like someone to explain how every single recognizable part of this airplane was burried in the dirt.

This crash site shows no plane, no people, no luggage, no seats, no engines, no nothing.
For anyone to say an airplane crashed here is insane.
What ever was dug up from the dirt was clearly planted before or after the fact.

First of all...im not posting the pictures of the debris that was found there AGAIN. There was some.

Now, for you to say that evidence was "planted" (body parts and airplane parts) BEFORE 911?? OMG... the body parts were identified by the local medical examiner ...and he was able to match several victims with their DNA. Ok... so please tell me how the victims DNA was planted PRIOR to 911??!!

[edit on 19-5-2007 by CameronFox]

The plane disappeared because that's what happens in crashes when they nosedive into soft terrain. I've read several crash reports of different types of planes where the plane hit straight down at high speed, into soft earth like at Shanksville, and the usual first reaction of the responders is "Where's the plane?" There was an A-6 Intruder that nosedived and they had to dig down 6 feet before finding anything they could even start to recognize as from a plane.

The C-130 was flying from Andrews to either Minnesota or Missouri (I remember it was an M state but that's all I remember right now), so the flight path would have taken it by both places with a negligible divert from the flight path. As for the ground hold, it was announced right before takeoff so the message was probably being confirmed when he took off from Andrews. He was almost HIT by Flight 77, and he arrived at Flight 93's impact area several minutes AFTER impact. The only reason he was at Flight 93 is because the C-130 has a relatively slow cruising speed. Otherwise he would have already been past it.

Originally posted by CameronFox

First of all...im not posting the pictures of the debris that was found there AGAIN. There was some.

There were very few recognizable plane parts. Certainly few enough and small enough to have had the opportunity to have been staged.

What was NOT visible were plane parts that could NOT have been staged. Things like a burnt out fuselage, crumpled wings, the tail section, etc.

Now, for you to say that evidence was "planted" (body parts and airplane parts) BEFORE 911??

I'm not sure why you believe I said this.

OMG... the body parts were identified by the local medical examiner ...and he was able to match several victims with their DNA. Ok... so please tell me how the victims DNA was planted PRIOR to 911??!!

Matching DNA is only reliable as the chain of evidence, which has never been scrutinized or documented. To believe the government story one must have faith that the government is telling the truth all along the way. The government NEVER demonstrated or substantiated their claims -they simply made the claims.

As for the coroner, body parts were delivered by the FBI agents. At least that's my understanding. All that is required to make the claim that the DNA matched is a report from the lab where the DNA was sent. How can the chain of DNA evidence be verified? It could have been manipulated after the fact.

Indian Park Airport has two runways and the longest one being 4490 feet x 50 feet. The main gear strut centerline distance is 24 feet on the 757. If you add the distance of the wheels on each side of the struts, you're looking at about 30 feet total distance between the outside of the outermost part of the main landing gear. That leaves about 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the runway for the airplane to touch down at 150 mph. That's asking a lot of any pilot to "sneak" into an airport that is closed down and at the extremes of the performance of the aircraft.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Indian Park Airport has two runways and the longest one being 4490 feet x 50 feet. The main gear strut centerline distance is 24 feet on the 757. If you add the distance of the wheels on each side of the struts, you're looking at about 30 feet total distance between the outside of the outermost part of the main landing gear. That leaves about 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the runway for the airplane to touch down at 150 mph. That's asking a lot of any pilot to "sneak" into an airport that is closed down and at the extremes of the performance of the aircraft.

There is no necessity for the plane to actually BE a 757 per this theory. It could be similar, but smaller, commercial jet used by the military to give the appearance of a 757.

And of course this is obvious, but whatever piloting skills that would be necessary to land a 757 at Indian Lake pale in comparison to the skills it would have taken to manuever FL 77 into the Pentagon per the official story.