where's the airplane?

The story of Flight 93 NEVER made sense. There was no evidence that flight 93 crashed intact, debris was spread over 3 miles! Did the plane break up in the air? Why was there was no evidence at the site.

check it out for your self:

www.evtv1.com...

Almost all of the debris that was thrown miles away were the really light bits left over. Bits of paper, seat cushions, wiring insulation, etc.

reply to post by Zaphod58


im not bying it, thats not what a plane crash looks like!!!

You're comparing a plane crash where the pilot was trying NOT to crash, with a plane crash where the plane went straight down into soft earth. They look NOTHING alike. There was an A-6 Intruder crash once where it went straight into the ground. The first thing they said when they got there was "Where's the plane?" The found the engines almost 10 feet underground and compressed to 3 feet long. In a low speed level crash, you're right, it DOESN'T look like that. In a high speed nose down crash the fuselage is going to compress in on itself like an accordion.

reply to post by Zaphod58


you could look at it that way. but why are they so hush, hush about it? they never showed that footage again on tv!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're comparing a plane crash where the pilot was trying NOT to crash, with a plane crash where the plane went straight down into soft earth. They look NOTHING alike. There was an A-6 Intruder crash once where it went straight into the ground. The first thing they said when they got there was "Where's the plane?" The found the engines almost 10 feet underground and compressed to 3 feet long. In a low speed level crash, you're right, it DOESN'T look like that. In a high speed nose down crash the fuselage is going to compress in on itself like an accordion.

well A. the plane did not crash horizontally and even if it did you would have had a huge pile of Engine, and the main body!!
B. the hole doesn't even have the resemblance of a plane crash. (it's deep and in the form of a slash NO engine marks,so it would be like only the center falled down from a crane)
C. there were no actuall engines there!! only a lot of small little peaces. ( that doesn't happen in a crash ANY crash.
D. if a plane hits full speed against an montain you would have fairly big peaces The huge engines plus a lot more big peaces.( the peaces that were there were the size that one could carry it in one hand, like a trash dump of papers and juices packages ).
Here arew links to real crash landings, and crashes.
images.google.com...://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200703/r131336_435543.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/13/ 2089015.htm%3Fsection%3Dworld&h=567&w=840&sz=134&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=kfO1KtJt6P0fSM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcrash%2Blanding%26svnum% 3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN
www.eriding.net...
images.google.com...://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2949465/2/istockphoto_2949465_plane_crash_4.jpg&imgrefurl=ht tp://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/%3Fid%3D2949465%26refnum%3D740424&h=264&w=380&sz=51&hl=en&start=25&um=1&tbnid=8FKQ6ThIDgxX7M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=123&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dplane%2Bcrash%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US: official%26sa%3DN
images.google.com...://english.people.com.cn/200607/11/images/crash1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200607/11/ eng20060711_282016.html&h=291&w=400&sz=64&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=5gLb4NiTE8j3uM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplane%2Bcrash%26start%3D20%26n dsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN

just did a quick search, and you will see something very peculiar in all, Engines and some big peaces of body at least one LOL the same problem that there was with the pentagon "plane crash"


Edit: please copy paste, i am new to posting so i lack experience and knowledge on how to place correctfully links.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by kinglatin]

Did you ever see the video of the B-52 that does a low altitude nose dive? I saw the pictures of the aftermath and there was literally NOTHING left. And that's a HUGE airplane. It wasn't going nearly as fast as Flight 93 was. He made a left turn, stalled and went nose in and exploded.

reply to post by Zaphod58


please post the link to it. I need to see to believe. And possibly i can point out some things too.
thanks

I can't post the link to the aftermath because they're not online. They were never released publicly, but I can post the link to the video.

There is one large piece of wing that you can see fly out of the fireball, and that's it. In the pictures of the aftermath there was very little recognizable as having come from a B-52.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


that video just shows it crash and blow up. there is no proof of the after math like with fight 93!

And if you read my first paragraph the aftermath pictures were never released to the public or put online, so I can't link to them. The video was to give you the idea of how violent a nosedive impact is.

reply to post by Zaphod58


ya of that kind of airplane, they are completly differnt!

It doesn't matter WHAT kind of airplane it is. A nosedive impact is going to leave very small pieces behind. You're taking an object weighing over 100,000 lbs, smashing it straight down into an immovable object. It's going to do an accordion and compress down the length of the fuselage.

You want a better comparison? How about ValuJet? It did a nose dive in the Everglades, into soft ground, similar to Shanksville.

Francis also said it is doubtful that large sections of the plane will be found. The largest piece of wreckage found so far is only 8 feet long. Thus far, no bodies have been located, but searchers have reportedly recovered body parts.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


How about Swiss Air flight 111? sure it was a water impact but that impact is initially the same due to the speed. much like hitting concrete and the plane basically shattered into millions of little parts and very little was left intact.

sure this wasn't as severe but it shows how much damage water can do ground which does less to absorb the impact would shatter the aircraft even more.

An estimated 2 million pieces of debris were recovered and brought ashore for inspection at a secure handling facility in a marine industrial park at Sheet Harbour where small material was hand inspected by teams of RCMP officers looking for human remains, personal effects and valuables from the aircraft's cargo hold.

www.tsb.gc.ca...


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

I believe there's no debris/scattered debris because the plane was taken out by a missile.

Rumsfeld had a slip of the tongue during an interview where he verified this.

Don't know why they covered it up, they didn't have to, WE wanted these planes brought down.

BUT along came the "Let's Roll" call from Beamer(a hero either way), and it made for a better story.

But after you lie so many times, it's hard to keep em all straight. You can catch all of the major players making slips of the tongue here and there. I won't go into them in detail I'm sure anyone who's familiar with 9/11 knows what I'm talking about.

But again the truth is easy to tell, because it's the truth you just tell what happened. Lies, and multiple lies like these guys and gals have here are harder to keep straight, and again slip up's are going to, and will occur.

Don't let them tell you oh he was just confused at the time. NO he wasn't he just couldn't keep all of the dozens of lies in order.

I was gonna post a link to the Rumsfeld video, because I have a folder with links to all these little slip up's and pertinant info. Anyways in the video he clearly states 93 was brought down by a missile. But what do you know the video which was up 2 weeks ago has been removed by youtube"due to some sort of violation", got me.






[edit on 8-12-2007 by Nola213]

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Nola213]

I remember being in the lounge room on a macadamia farm in northern nsw watching 9/11 going down. When at one stage during the broadcast they switched to some field with a bomb crator in it and declared that this was where it went down. It was this plus the immediate pictures of the Pentagon that started my partner and I wondering, no wreckage per say, what is going on here? This does'nt make sense. The confiscated Pentagon tapes are the key that is if they have'nt destroyed them already.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're comparing a plane crash where the pilot was trying NOT to crash, with a plane crash where the plane went straight down into soft earth. They look NOTHING alike. There was an A-6 Intruder crash once where it went straight into the ground. The first thing they said when they got there was "Where's the plane?" The found the engines almost 10 feet underground and compressed to 3 feet long. In a low speed level crash, you're right, it DOESN'T look like that. In a high speed nose down crash the fuselage is going to compress in on itself like an accordion.

Yeah, then how come the plane that crashed nose first into a mountainside at 500mph in NZ, was still recognisable?

Oh I don't know, maybe because it didn't hit at a very steep attitude? What kind of plane was it? That also makes a difference. What was the pilot doing at the time of the crash? Trying not to crash, or diving into the mountain? That makes a difference.

You guys do know that the 3 mile thing has been debunked already, right?
The 3 mile estimate was due to a piece of debris that was found in a nearby lake. The lake is only ½ mile from the crash site, but its 3 miles away by road. Some news agency supposedly did a mapquest search from the crash site to the lake, and came up with the 3 mile estimate. Problem being that mapquest follows the roads from the crash site to the lake, while the debris took the direct route of ½ mile.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]