supposed "rare" united 93 footage.

The video they were showing of her was when she was 8 or 9 years old. The family didn't want her interviewed for the show and bring back bad memories of what happened.

I live in Canada, and I was watching the news the day of 9/11 and I remeber them saying that 2 jets had gone from New York to intersept flight 93 with orders to shoot it down.

Then I saw that Romsfield announce that the jet had been shot down, wich made sence to me due to the threats at hand. Not that it would have been an easy dissision for me to make.... but then thats why I dont join the military.
Then I hear the plane crashed, due to passangers onboard trying to take back the plane, but this had to be almost an hour after romsfield said they had shot down flight 93, so i was really confused as to what really happend to flight 93(shot down or due to heroism)? so i asked a freind what he knew about it and he said all he knew was it crashed... I asked him if he saw the the news I saw where Ramsfield said they shot it down and what not... he said no he must of missed it. Impossible I said your sitting right next to me. But he honestly doesnt belive me that that happend, and now to see that news footage appear on youtube confirms I wasnt crazy. But now the question is there again... what happend to flight 93(shot down or due to heroism)?

has anyone seen this video?
www.youtube.com...

Also notice where they brought the +200 passangers from flight 93.
Hitler looks like a saint in comparison...

Also I noticed, as my friend did too, why these jets appeared to be a dark color like medium gray, when most airliners are white or nice colors, I never seen a dark coloured passenger plane before especially a dark gray one.
Also...
www.youtube.com...

Notice she doesnt mention the huge explosion? I know they cut the tape while she was talking but I think if she would have said that she then saw a huge explosion that they would have included that as well in there report.

Originally posted by SpaceBits
Also I noticed, as my friend did too, why these jets appeared to be a dark color like medium gray, when most airliners are white or nice colors, I never seen a dark coloured passenger plane before especially a dark gray one.

Then you obviously have never seen United Airlines. They're changing to white and blue now, but they've used the dark grey paint for a LONG time now. They changed it after United 811, in 1989.

This pic was from 1999, a full two years before 9/11.

Originally posted by apex


The small amount of water present at the ValuJet crash site, followed by the ground, wouldn't make too much difference I would think. Both were going pretty much straight down, and the Valujet plane did hit bedrock, and shattered on impact. As opposed to United 93, which hit slightly less solid ground.

It doesn't matter how shallow the water was at the ValuJet crash site. The plane parts are going to sink, not float on the surface. This is why you can't seen any plane parts in the ValuJet photos floating on the water.

Originally posted by defcon5

So what kind of money do you guys make on selling DVD’s, Books, and Web advertising now-a-days?

Less than Haliburton, Exxon, Raytheon, and Dick Cheney. And I'm sure a lot less than Sandy Berger, Lee Hamilton, and Jamie Gorelick.

Are you seriously even considering that anybdoy from the 911T cause has financial incentives more than the people and businesses who profited from 9/11 "terrorists attacked us" version of events?

Originally posted by apex


OK then, American airlines 191, lost an engine on takeoff, but here is the wreckage of it:

Sorry, but the American 191 crash left tons of wreckage and bodies. Here are the photos that you did NOT show:

Wreckage near a trailer park:



Marking bodies with numbers:


Large piece of plane:



And as a reminder, here is the FL 93 crash site. Notice ANY pieces of the plane?

And, I said that the Valujet plane hit bedrock in the everglades, and broke up, so just because its a bit swampy, does that mean it is really that different?

Plane parts generally do not float on water. I would say that means the ValuJet crash site is significantly different from the FL 93 site.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
No amount of techno-talk is going to change the screamingly obvious observation any rational person must make when reviewing tribaltrip's video link – no 757, 767 or 7-anything crashed at Shanksville. There is no need for detailed scientific analysis here. There is nothing to analyze, because there is nothing there (at Shanksville).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/28/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

There clearly is something there. There are engines that I can clearly identify as the 757 engines. There are also windows. What the heck do you mean there is nothing there?

Anyway I could also say the same thing back to you.... Four airliners magically disapearing without a trace and there crashes staged? You don't need a scientifical analisis to figure that one out.

It doesn't matter how shallow the water was at the ValuJet crash site. The plane parts are going to sink, not float on the surface. This is why you can't seen any plane parts in the ValuJet photos floating on the water.

And I am going to say again, if any large peice of the aircraft was left after the everglades DC-9 crash it would be VISIBLE from the surface. Why? LOOK! THERE IS PEOPLE STANDING THERE!

[edit on 29-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]

And thank you nick7261 for showing us a clear picture that there CLEARLY was very large visible wing impacts at the Flight 93 crash scene.



Nick, I have got no idea how you can compare a massive DC-10 crashing into a hard urban environment with a fairly SMALL 757 crashing into SOFT ground.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by nick7261
It doesn't matter how shallow the water was at the ValuJet crash site. The plane parts are going to sink, not float on the surface. This is why you can't seen any plane parts in the ValuJet photos floating on the water.

Just because it's not floating, doesn't mean it's not there, like just because UA93 went into the ground, doesn't mean it's not there.

OK, have an image of TWA 800 being rebuilt in a hangar, the pieces on the floor don't look very big to me, and I would think those cables wouldn't be too easy to see on the ground near where UA93 crashed, particularly with that largely pixelated photo you showed us. Good view of the dent the wings made though, and I fail to see how a small jet could make that hole.





Second one seems to be floating. Although this is TWA 800 here, so this piece could have come from the initial explosion and so not shatter on impact with water. And before you say that thats not how UA93 hit, well last I looked earth is distinctly less solid than water to hit.

Originally posted by nick7261
Are you seriously even considering that anybdoy from the 911T cause has financial incentives more than the people and businesses who profited from 9/11 "terrorists attacked us" version of events?

When they stop selling things then I’ll believe this. Just follow the money and you’ll get the real truth. The two collage kiddies who wrote “Loose change” now own their own company and made millions off of that film, even though they admitted it was a complete fictional fabrication when they made it. Of course, now that they are making tons off of it, I doubt they will admit to the fact. After that happened you got a bunch of copycats who smelled fresh blood in the water and followed suit. These guys got a bunch of zealot followers out doing their dirty work for them as well.

Go watch SO’s film that he linked here, and pay special attention to the part where the victims family member gets upset, and the author admits that when the police aren’t watching they are selling their media crap at the World Trade Center, which is illegal:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another member here just made me aware of this thread as well, where we can see the “Pilots full of a bowel” movement released a doctored Flight Simulation, supposedly based on NTSB data, to show things the way they wanted to, rather then they way they really were. Considering that every time a pilot flies, he needs to deal with magnetic variation, how could these pilots not know that? Can you say “Fraud”? So considering that they just got caught with their pants around their ankles, how much did a certain member here have to pay his "Pentacon" folks to Lie on film for him for the DVD that they are selling? One of those guys is a police officer, maybe they should have to submit to a polygraph test to prove they are not giving a false statement. The FAA should be looking into pulling a couple of the real pilots, in that groups, licenses for abusing them to potentially commit fraud.

Perhaps you can tell my why so many of the BS movement guys claim to have a Commercial Pilots License? Is it because they are intentionally trying to mislead folks into believing that they are qualified to fly for a Commercial Airline? This is intentionally misleading, as a Commercial Pilots License only requires a standard VFR Private Pilots License and a simple test to get; real Commercial Airlines pilots have a license called an Airline Transport License, which takes a vast amount more time, money, and training to obtain. Lets just say that you can obtain a Commercial Pilots License for under $1000 USD, and an Airline Transport Pilot is usually into his training for at least $250,000 USD by the time he is flying for an airlines. Again intentionally misleading, and intentional fraud.

That is the truth movement in a nutshell…

Liars.
Con Men.
Scam Artists.
Attention Seekers.
Or just plain Ignorant.

[edit on 5/29/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5

When they stop selling things then I’ll believe this. Just follow the money and you’ll get the real truth.

Ok. I'll follow the money to get to the real truth. Who made more money after 9/11, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Exxon and Haliburton, OR all the 9/11 Truth publishers combined?

The two collage kiddies who wrote “Loose change” now own their own company and made millions off of that film, even though they admitted it was a complete fictional fabrication when they made it. Of course, now that they are making tons off of it, I doubt they will admit to the fact. After that happened you got a bunch of copycats who smelled fresh blood in the water and followed suit. These guys got a bunch of zealot followers out doing their dirty work for them as well.

So what? What's your point? Why don't you go out and make a video to sell explaining the official theory. I'm sure it will sell well.

Considering that every time a pilot flies, he needs to deal with magnetic variation, how could these pilots not know that? Can you say “Fraud”? So considering that they just got caught with their pants around their ankles, how much did a certain member here have to pay his "Pentacon" folks to Lie on film for him for the DVD that they are selling? One of those guys is a police officer, maybe they should have to submit to a polygraph test to prove they are not giving a false statement. The FAA should be looking into pulling a couple of the real pilots, in that groups, licenses for abusing them to potentially commit fraud.

I don't doubt this one bit.

That is the truth movement in a nutshell…

Liars.
Con Men.
Scam Artists.
Attention Seekers.
Or just plain Ignorant.

Coincidentally, that also describes the members who made up the 9/11 Commission. Check the news wires today to see how 9/11 Co-Chair Lee Hamilton's current boss, Sandy Berger, just skated out of the last open investigation into his admitted stealing and destruction of classified documents.

You can rant all you want about the frauds who've profited from the 9/11 Truth videos, etc., but the money they've made pales in comparison to the money that was made, and is STILL being made, by the likes of Berger, Cheney, Hamilton, Rumsfeld, and others who benefitted financially from the "official" story.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR.
And I am going to say again, if any large peice of the aircraft was left after the everglades DC-9 crash it would be VISIBLE from the surface. Why? LOOK! THERE IS PEOPLE STANDING THERE!

You mean visible on the surface like this?



And I guess there were bodies in Shanksville like these found at the ValuJet site:






And I guess the 3 foot window section of FL 93 compares to this ValuJet wreckage:

Nick, I have got no idea how you can compare a massive DC-10 crashing into a hard urban environment with a fairly SMALL 757 crashing into SOFT ground.

I'm not the one who compared the FL 191 crash to FL 93. It was argued that FL 191's crash site left little, if any debris, as evidence that the FL 93 site was comparable. I just posted the other pictures of the FL 191 wreckage that debunked that bogus claim.

Actually I believe his claim of AA191 was that there were no HUGE chunks of debris left, like most people claim is at EVERY crash site. That's how *I* took it anyway. One of the arguments that's brought up about Flight 93 is that there is always a tail section, and/or huge chunks of debris from a crash, that we didn't see at Flight 93's impact site.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by PisTonZOR.
And I am going to say again, if any large peice of the aircraft was left after the everglades DC-9 crash it would be VISIBLE from the surface. Why? LOOK! THERE IS PEOPLE STANDING THERE!

You mean visible on the surface like this?

seems to be the engine, they are made to be difficult to destroy the internal forces on them are huge, a single fan blade at full speed can have a similar kinetic energy to an anti tank projectile.

And I guess there were bodies in Shanksville like these found at the ValuJet site:

Not what I would describe as exactly conclusive evidence.

And I guess the 3 foot window section of FL 93 compares to this ValuJet wreckage:

Seems to be grouped up in one place, as opposed to spread over a field or buried in a field. Biggest piece doesn't look very big either.

I'm not the one who compared the FL 191 crash to FL 93. It was argued that FL 191's crash site left little, if any debris, as evidence that the FL 93 site was comparable. I just posted the other pictures of the FL 191 wreckage that debunked that bogus claim.

I brought that up, but again, from that relatively small altitude drop, there was not many large pieces even then. And when you have a smaller plane, hitting the ground at high speed, such large pieces are not likely do you think?

Originally posted by nick7261
You can rant all you want about the frauds who've profited from the 9/11 Truth videos, etc., but the money they've made pales in comparison to the money that was made, and is STILL being made, by the likes of Berger, Cheney, Hamilton, Rumsfeld, and others who benefitted financially from the "official" story.

Oh, I will not even begin to deny that the events have sent us into a war from which the Merchants of Death are profiting; there is no doubt about that fact. No matter whether it was WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf Wars, profit is always made in war.

However, we are not here to discuss that factor, we are here to discuss the events of 911, and whether or not the information used by groups such as the Truth Cult are valid grievances that point to direct government involvement. So far the Truth Cult has shown a great propensity to be deceitful, and garner profit from those who lack knowledge in certain areas. They pray on the type of folks to whom this stuff sounds credible, as they have no idea about aircraft, other then they look big, heavy, and powerful. They chant the constant mantra of “Where’s the Tail”, knowing full well that the average person is accustomed to hearing that they should “sit in the tail of an aircraft, as its stronger and always survives a crash”, even though with newer aircraft that is no longer the case. Basically, they pray on other innocent members of my community, who don’t know any better then to not believe them. Besides this they generate stupid theories, with no basis in reality, which propagate further ignorance about the subject, and really annoy me personally.

Like it or not, to sell something that you know is fiction, and label it as fact, is a crime in this country. I assume that because you believe that the government was behind 911, and guilty of a crime that we should all be allowed to do as we please just like them, right? I mean if they got away with something wrong, why not the rest of us, eh? I think that later on maybe I’ll phone the local jail, and tell them they have to let everyone go because Nick and the Truth Cult say the government has committed worse crimes then the folks they are holding, think that will fly?

“Nick and the truth cult”… Hmmm… Sounds like a band name.

Now I cannot do a darn thing about the war, and the merchants of death who profit on that; However, I can sure as heck put up a bit of a fight, in the limited time I have available, to educate folks against these merchants of ignorance and profit.

Originally posted by nick7261
So what? What's your point? Why don't you go out and make a video to sell explaining the official theory. I'm sure it will sell well.

Well, that is why what I write has some credibility, because I do it of my own free time, and I don’t do it because anyone is paying me, or inviting me on some talk show.

Originally posted by apex

I brought that up, but again (FL 191), from that relatively small altitude drop, there was not many large pieces even then. And when you have a smaller plane, hitting the ground at high speed, such large pieces are not likely do you think?

No, I think larger pieces are very likely. Here are photos of FL 427 that dropped nose-first outside of Pittsburgh:








And again, the FL 93 crater:






I'm not saying this *proves* there was no plane in the crater. But comparisons to any other crash photo fall far short.

Hang on, while we can put pictures of air crashes proving and disproving this all day, as it would be very hard to replicate any of these crashes, in order to get the right result.

In which case, reproducing this UA93 crater with an impact from a missile would seem necessary, and also to get the wing pattern with it. The middle of the crater we need an image of without the smoke, so we can see how it is on the inside. If it was a missile we could see some area hollowed out by it's explosion, and probably some subsidence to the sides, whereas what we see is like an impact crater from an asteroid, for example, as a profile like this:



Obviously I just made this, but it's not really what I would expect from a missile, nor is the wing pattern.

Originally posted by apex
Hang on, while we can put pictures of air crashes proving and disproving this all day, as it would be very hard to replicate any of these crashes, in order to get the right result.

In which case, reproducing this UA93 crater with an impact from a missile would seem necessary, and also to get the wing pattern with it. The middle of the crater we need an image of without the smoke, so we can see how it is on the inside. If it was a missile we could see some area hollowed out by it's explosion, and probably some subsidence to the sides, whereas what we see is like an impact crater from an asteroid, for example, as a profile like this:

Obviously I just made this, but it's not really what I would expect from a missile, nor is the wing pattern.

Good post!

I agree. Something made the crater at Shanksville, and your graphic seems to show what a bomb dropped straight down might leave.

However, what type of crater would a missile coming in at a 45 degree angle leave? Especially if the missle had wings and a vertical tail stabilizer?



I realize the wing span of a standard cruise missile is only 12 feet. However, there are 2 points worth mentioning:

a) there has never been any definitive dimensions for the crater at Shanksville. Just looking at the crater and reading eye-witness accounts, there's nothing I've seen that would lead me to believe that the crater's wing marks span 150 feet to match up with the size of a 757.

b) IF this was a contrived crash scene, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a "custom" cruise missile to be used with a larger wing span.

In fact, something like what is shown in this photo might also explain why eye-witnesses said they say a plane fly upside down:

Yes, the crater looks like something that has hit with high speed has done, or some explosive, rather than how a missile might do it, as most missiles are made to penetrate rather than airburst aren't they?

Explosive munitions aren't really a strong point in my knowledge, so I'm not sure. As for a wider wingspan missile, I don't know, missiles would not have any need for them, unless the purpose was to fake this. I'd say you would need a stronger airframe at the wing area to do what we see in that field. Something more like a plane really, but then, I'm not going to pretend I'm not biased.

Originally posted by apex
Hang on, while we can put pictures of air crashes proving and disproving this all day, as it would be very hard to replicate any of these crashes, in order to get the right result.

These photos of the FL93 crater from other angles. It doesn't look to me like the shape of the crater matches up with the 45 degree angle that FL93 is supposed to have impacted at.

Also, what happened to the vertical tail section? The mark on the ground is very shallow, indicating that the "soft earth" didn't just swallow it whole.

The reason the wreckage is so spread out is because the plane was shot down. It really boggles my mind how many people believe the standard story given the information available to us.