supposed "rare" united 93 footage.

Well i was doing my daily research in the whole 911 thing as always,
and picked up on a very odd video on youtube.
I know, i know, youtube may not be the best for qaulity but i must say the video shows some good evidence that there was never any plane there,
just a big hole and what looks like paper all over.
Make your own judgements.

Video

[edit on 27-5-2007 by tribaltrip]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by tribaltrip]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by tribaltrip]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by tribaltrip]

Wow! I can see why that was never shown again! (seriously, they checked, all channels, all time slots since 9/11, not once!) Indeed I see no Boeing at the crash site. It's quite reminiscent actually of another spot we didn''t see a Boeing, thousands insist there was therefore not one, they looked like fools, where was that? Oh yeah, the Pentagon!

yea, i thought it was quite an interesting video
and you know, you see alot of these video's with "crazy" footage, but this is what i would call some hard evidence,
My question is what exactly had happened in that little field, im reassured there was 747 considering what i seen a 747 do to the wtc's any ideas?
anybody?

Good video.

I don't understand what numpty would make such a halfhearted attempt at faking a plane crash - if that was indeed the plan. Was the flight 93 story cobbled together on the hoof so to speak because things didn't go to plan? Or is it supposed to be a cr*p story to divert attention or to keep the discussion going on for years?

If it is the latter they succeeded!

Originally posted by tribaltrip
My question is what exactly had happened in that little field, im reassured there was 747 considering what i seen a 747 do to the wtc's any ideas?
anybody?

Correction 737's much smaller than the big daddy 747's!

Originally posted by tribaltrip
yea, i thought it was quite an interesting video
and you know, you see alot of these video's with "crazy" footage, but this is what i would call some hard evidence,
My question is what exactly had happened in that little field, im reassured there was 747 considering what i seen a 747 do to the wtc's any ideas?
anybody?

It's been covered a ton but not by me. I think the vids just show again what we already know - the plane disappeared. To solve this riddle, I'd guess keep the 757 idea in mind before discarding it, analyze the type of ground hit (infilled strip mine - like a giant sandbox), the angle of impact, the tree damage and fires, etc. It fits with a rather odd plane crash, which I guess it was.
If you wanna see no-plane arguments, search threads for Flight 93, there's a few
I don't buy 'em but we are each the masters of our own minds, as Hunter might say.


[edit on 27-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by tribaltrip
My question is what exactly had happened in that little field, im reassured there was 747 considering what i seen a 747 do to the wtc's any ideas?
anybody?

Correction 737's much smaller than the big daddy 747's!

Corrected again - no 4s or 3s.
NY=B767
DC/PA=B757
Create appropriate mnemonic device

I wonder what debris from a commercial jet that had been shot down over farmland would look like?

Nice video, find and post! and flagged!

15-20 feet length x 10 feet width impact site dimensions = Not consistent with an aircraft impact or auger into the ground.

Little debris (literally) no pieces larger than a 'phonebook'.

Not shown after the initial broadcast.

hmmmm. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

[edit on 27-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Exactly no matter how big it was, there's no way, that it just broke up into a bunch of pieces like that,
What about all the stuff in side the plane what about the whole, it doesnt even look like anything had cought fire.
just looks like a hole.
There has to be bigger pieces then what we had seen,
no engine part either. just white mysterious pieces.

you know, i JUST listened to HST doing an interview in australia in 2002.
tribaltrip, your words are all read with his voice sounding in my head.
he kept calling everyone 'bastards'. i loved that. that bastard in the whitehouse. we gotta stop that bastard. those liberal bastards.

anyway. yeah. no hole, and rumsfeld saying they shot it down, and a pilot saying he was the one who shot it down kinda of confuses things.

wait, no it doesn't. it clarifies them. the plane was shot down.

Thank you for your insightful post, TribalTrip. The video tells the story. Wow, a hole in the ground. No visible degree seen anywhere (unless you count Mead regular spaced sheets of paper scattered aboiut). No metal fragments, no engine parts, no fuselage chunks, no seats, no dead bodies, no evidence of disentigrated in to a pulp and charred bone fragments -- NOTHING. Flight 93 is a riddle wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma. This was was by no means an ordinairy crash and perhaps no passenger jet crash at all.

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
I wonder what debris from a commercial jet that had been shot down over farmland would look like?

If the plane had been shot down, or if it had been a controlled type crash, which is what we are used to seeing btw, then I would expect to see a lot more large debris. Specifically, when one is shot down, it’s going to leave some large debris scattered over a very wide area. This crash scene is consistent with someone putting a plane nose-first into the ground, at a high rate of speed. In that scenario there would only be very small pieces ejected from the aircraft, the major stuff would have been compacted down to almost nothing inside that hole.

Originally posted by greatlakes
15-20 feet length x 10 feet width impact site dimensions = Not consistent with an aircraft impact or auger into the ground.

Actually 15x20 is plenty large enough for a 757 fuselage, after all it’s not significantly bigger then a DC-9/MD-80 in diameter…

DC-9/MD-80 Cabin cross section:
External width: 10 ft 11.6 in (3.34 m)
External height: 11 ft 8 in (3.6 m)
Internal width: 10 ft 3.7 in (3.14 m)

757 Specifacations
Cabin Width =3.54 m (11 ft 7 in)
Note: I am pretty sure this is internal width

I don’t think that anyone here is going to argue that a DC-9 could make a similar sized hole in the ground. The only major difference between the two is that a 757 has a longer set of wings, bigger engines, taller tail, and a longer fuselage. The body itself of the aircraft is very small; it just looks large do to its engines and landing gear. Just look at the seating charts for both aircraft and you’ll notice that there is only one seat worth of size distance, which is less then 2 feet.

757 Seating Chart
MD-80 Seating Chart

Same thing applies to the whole in the Pentagon.

the debris was spread out over four miles.
the hole is tiny, with no debris around it.
80 tons of metal? jumbo jet crashes don't look like that. there is usually a tail section, a burned out fuselage, and some frickin' WING SPARS.

you're wrong.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
the debris was spread out over four miles.
the hole is tiny, with no debris around it.
80 tons of metal? jumbo jet crashes don't look like that. there is usually a tail section, a burned out fuselage, and some frickin' WING SPARS.

That is the problem, it's spread over four miles. And the small sized pieces is interesting too. The hole we could assume to be from a fuselage of a plane, going into the ground at 400mph+ is going to go fairly deep into the ground. But what caused the spread of debris over four miles?

For example, this is how TWA 800 broke up:

explanation of colour coded debris



It spread over a large area, and if those four miles were in one direction only, a shoot down is possible. But a shot down plane still doesn't dissipate like that, whereas this plane did.

How on earth does it get explained then? As for reports of engines coming off, it can happen without use of explosives, but the only examples in the past have been at takeoff.
El Al 1862

So, what can cause that crater and spread the damage over that area? Some sort of large explosive device I assume, perhaps similar to the MOAB.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by apex]

mod edit: Please read this link-ATTN: Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 27-5-2007 by sanctum]

I dunno what any of you are on about.
I clearly see a plane, amongst those tiny pieces of debri...
There's as much of a plane there as in the pentagon...

Funny, 4 planes were used, but only PROOF of 2 planes exists...

Originally posted by billybob
the debris was spread out over four miles.
the hole is tiny, with no debris around it.
80 tons of metal? jumbo jet crashes don't look like that. there is usually a tail section, a burned out fuselage, and some frickin' WING SPARS.

you're wrong.

Yeah, us airlines folks don’t know much about aircraft after all, do we?
I’m wrong, there I have been told.

Unfortunately, if you notice, most of a aircraft is empty airspace on the inside, so it can crush down quite small. The metal and the frame is made to be light and flexible, but it is not very solid once it starts to break up, its only really strong when its all in once piece. Also, lets just do away with this idea that the tail always survives, as that is a bunch of BS that only related to older aircraft with tail-mounted engines. The 757 has nothing of consequence in the tail, and its empty airfoil with no serious reinforcement. The wing-spars are most likely in the ground, just cause they did not see them when they arrived, does not mean they were not buried there. BTW 15x20 is not tiny when you consider that the fuselage is only like 13 feet in diameter on the exterior.

Originally posted by apex
As for reports of engines coming off, it can happen without use of explosives, but the only examples in the past have been at takeoff.
El Al 1862

Gulf War I, a KC-135E was caught in wake turbulence from a tanker flying in front of it. It proceeded to do a series of Dutch Rolls (side to side rolls), during which two engines on one side separated from the aircraft. Upon landing with the other two, the engine mounts were found to have significant structural damage.

The simple explanation is that the engine mounts are designed for VERTICAL stresses. The wing flexing up and down, and just the weight of the engine. If you put a LATERAL stress on the engine the mount will fail MUCH faster. If they were rocking the plane from side to side to throw people off their feet, then they could have caused catastrophic failure of an engine mount.



[edit on 5/27/2007 by Zaphod58]

[removed quote of entire previous post]



I didn't know about that one, thanks. I had thought that were an engine to come off, it was pretty much guaranteed loss of aircraft. Did they know the engines had come off, and as such know how to make corrections for the centre of gravity? Sounds like they were lucky.



Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by apexI didn't know about that one, thanks.

I had thought that were an engine to come off, it was pretty much guaranteed loss of aircraft. Did they know the engines had come off, and as such know how to make corrections for the centre of gravity?

Engines are designed to fail under certain conditions, and exit the aircraft by going over the top of the wing. If you loose them all, on a jet, your most likely going to crash, as jets are not good gliders. However you can lose one and still trim it out on most two engine aircraft. Here is one that lost an engine on its way to TPA: Delta Engine Failure