FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by thedman


I sincerely thank you.

In your experience, did you see burning fuel for a significant time after the crash? The article states that witnesses saw flames higher then the trees. The article also states that the fire was relatively contained due to a nearly perpendicular angle. Can you elaborate on the extent of secondary burn? Not that you would necessarily know the answer to this question, but did you ever learn the impact speed?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Can anyone show another crash scene of any aircraft that hit so hard that the fuel instantly atomized and the structure was desintegrated to pieces smaller than a phone book? Surely there have been other planes that have crashed at 500 mph.

Unfortunately, other planes which have nosedived (or gone into terrain fast at other angles), mainly seem to have gone into the ocean, rather than into the ground. Now since water isn't quite as hard as the ground, and stuff sinks, most people say thats not a good comparison. But the thing is, the wreckage is still there, you just have to work harder to find it.

for example, from the NTSB report of Alaska 261:

About 85 percent of the fuselage was recovered. The largest sections were from
below the airplane’s floor line. The fuselage’s upper crown structure was broken into
smaller pieces and had substantial compression damage. The recovered fuselage segments
increased in size from the forward section of the airplane (where they were the smallest) to
the aft section of the airplane (where they were the largest).

Wikipedia description of the crash:

However the aircraft was beyond recovery, and fell approximately 18,000 feet nose-down and inverted for 1 minute, 21 seconds before impacting the ocean at high speed.

It doesn't say much about the actual condition of the rudder though, all it says is that the pieces got larger the further back they came from.
If they released the debris retrieved from Shanksville, it would be a lot easier to prove either way what happened, instead of speculation based on images of the crater.

From the NTSB report on Valujet 592:

Most of the right and left horizontal stabilizers were recovered in fragments, including center sections, spars, skin panels, and both hinge fittings. No marks were found to identify pitch trim or elevator orientation at the time of impact with the swamp.

Several pieces of the rudder were recovered. The largest piece measured 57 inches by 43 inches (144.78 cm by 109.22 cm). The preimpact position of the rudder was not determined.

Now, we don't know how big any of the rudder fragments from UA 93 were, which is of course the problem.

So, based on what we can see, I can't really see how we can really prove it either way.

In your experience, did you see burning fuel for a significant time after the crash? The article states that witnesses saw flames higher then the trees. The article also states that the fire was relatively contained due to a nearly perpendicular angle. Can you elaborate on the extent of secondary burn? Not that you would necessarily know the answer to this question, but did you ever learn the impact speed?

The reaction of everyone as came up on crash scene was "HOLY S***"
thought it was like end of world. Fire was knocked down relatively
quickly using hand lines from trucks. No secondary fires. Fuel was
atomized into small droplets by impact (example take mouthfull of
water, open window of car going down highway and spit out water,
air motion will break water into small droplets, plane going lot faster)
Impact speed was estimated by radar data at about 350mph - plane
struck side of hill only few yards from apartment complex. Would have
ploughed through occupied buildings if only few yards over. Plane was
fragmented into small pieces. Parallels with Shanksville crash site

Where the photographer is standing is where the windg and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire. Obvious lie.

LOOK A T THE PIC. No plane crash here.

Repeat 3 times. There was no plane in shanksville
There was no plane in shanksville
There was no plane in shanksville


I will not be hypnotized by lies anymore.
I will not be hypnotized by lies anymore.
I will not be hypnotized by lies anymore.

Even if it is copy pasted from fox-news.

There seems to a lot of 'something' lying around in that impact hole, maybe not a whole plane's worth of 'something' but lots of pieces of 'something' nevertheless.

After all this time I doubt there'll be any converts from the no-plane community even if they opened the warehouse and displayed all the supposed recovered and identified parts. The government and corporate stance on the whole 9/11 affair is indeed baffling and I dont see anything changing or else it would have already happened by now.

Where the photographer is standing is where the wind and engine was said to penetrate the ground and started a raging fire.

Obviously nothing impacted the ground outside that small crater, unless u got some looney conspiracy theory on how airplane wings 'atomize' .lol koo koo

reply to post by IvanZana



Can someone answer the last question? clarify for us how the wings left dents in the grass without breaking or burning one blade of grass?

Originally posted by IvanZana

Can someone answer the last question? clarify for us how the wings left dents in the grass without breaking or burning one blade of grass?

Allow me. Anybody who has the slightest, barest knowledge of aircraft construction and aircraft accident investigation would instantly know, after looking at the pictures above, that no airplane crashed there. None. Nada.

However, this fact doesn't prevent those terminally uninformed from expressing their opinions about things they know little or nothing about.

But please carry on, I enjoy reading about how a 250,000 pound airplane can disappear into mother earth leaving only a few pieces of aluminum scattered around.

I also like the part about digging an alleged engine out of the ground but not finding the horizontal/vertical tail assembly on top of it. Technically speaking the horizontal/vertical tail assembly should have arrived the scene of the accident almost immediately after the engine got there. So before you get to the engine you would have to dig up the tail assembly which would be on top of it.

And I also like the part about only finding one engine. A three ton engine core disintegrates? Sorry, not possible.

Double post, sorry.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by John Lear

Anybody who has the slightest, barest knowledge of aircraft construction and aircraft accident investigation would instantly know, after looking at the pictures above, that no airplane crashed there. None. Nada

So its fair to say that if you want a 9/11 smoking gun, flight 93 is it.


[edit on 21-12-2007 by IvanZana]

If the fuel was so thoroughly atomized, how were emergency workers sloshing around in puddles of it at the United 93 site?

To "thedman": Thanks again for your input. I see we may be of differing opinion on the topic, but I am in no way trying to dicredit your own experience.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
how were emergency workers sloshing around in puddles of it at the United 93 site?

like the earlier question. The cameraman in this picture is standing where the engine and wing penetrated the ground with thousands of liters of fuel.

No wings, no fuel, no "sloshing around"

You can't convince anyone with words when the picture rests the case.
No plane crash here.
And before you reply. this video has REAL EYEWITNESSES

No Plane, no parts, no fire, nothing....

Cheers



[edit on 21-12-2007 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Aliens laser zapping an entire plane would make more sense than what we have been told about alleged Flight 93 in the "official" report.

Seriously, did they measure any radioactivity levels around that area? Because that was done around DC after 9/11, and the professional physicists working in nuclear labs found high levels of radioactivity, stretching from the Pentagon to as far as 12 miles out around the DC area.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Would this be of significant importance to people on the forum? Though it does not specifically limit it to PA, it does reveal how people, in 2004, were viewing the "official" version of 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission report:

www.zogby.com...

"Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"

Contrary to what some post to the forum, the number of people demanding a thorough, objective official investigation is not as small in number as some mistakenly report.

reply to post by IvanZana



I think perhaps you misunderstood the direction of my question. I have already seen this video posted previously in the thread.

Originally posted by IvanZana
like the earlier question. The cameraman in this picture is standing where the engine and wing penetrated the ground with thousands of liters of fuel.

No wings, no fuel, no "sloshing around"

You can't convince anyone with words when the picture rests the case.
No plane crash here.

OK. so, what made the hole then? The grass looks like it hasn't been disturbed, so what made that hole? if there had been something there, surely it would have disturbed it in some way.

reply to post by johnlear


If the plane hit at a 40 degree angle, rather than the one we are led to believe, would it not have been flung into the air at least a little way perhaps? I'm not sure but supposedly didn't someone claim that to have happened at the pentagon as well?

YOUR RIGHT!

There is no plane there.

One can ony assume that the crater was caused by a bomb or missile with pre burried plane parts underneath. They also misdropped the debris.

Originally posted by IvanZana
YOUR RIGHT!

There is no plane there.

One can ony assume that the crater was caused by a bomb or missile with pre burried plane parts underneath. They also misdropped the debris.

In the video, didn't the one gentleman say the hole was only 10' by 20'? If that is the case, what commercial jetliner has a 10' or 20' wing span? A fuselage and cockpit is wider than 10' leaving no room for wings. If the widest part of the hole at 20' is supposed to represent wing span, that only leaves around 5' of wing span to be divided on both sides of the fuselage, including cockpit.

That tells me the balance of the wings, fuselage and tail should be lying not all that far from the hole. Nothing at all to indicate any plane parts. The woman reporter said there was nothing larger than a telephone book for debris. No passengers. No luggage. Not really anything to indicate plane crash.

What do have short wing spans are, for example, drones, but not any commercial jetliners. Most planes have wing spans not much shorter than their length which stablizes balance for the plane. The length may be 159' and wing span will be 153'.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by IvanZana

Can someone answer the last question? clarify for us how the wings left dents in the grass without breaking or burning one blade of grass?

Allow me. Anybody who has the slightest, barest knowledge of aircraft construction and aircraft accident investigation would instantly know, after looking at the pictures above, that no airplane crashed there. None. Nada.

However, this fact doesn't prevent those terminally uninformed from expressing their opinions about things they know little or nothing about.

But please carry on, I enjoy reading about how a 250,000 pound airplane can disappear into mother earth leaving only a few pieces of aluminum scattered around.

I also like the part about digging an alleged engine out of the ground but not finding the horizontal/vertical tail assembly on top of it. Technically speaking the horizontal/vertical tail assembly should have arrived the scene of the accident almost immediately after the engine got there. So before you get to the engine you would have to dig up the tail assembly which would be on top of it.

And I also like the part about only finding one engine. A three ton engine core disintegrates? Sorry, not possible.

Well Mr Lear if it wasn't a United 757 then what was it. Also as I have pointed out before in order for you to believe it was not a UAL 757 one has to belive one of two things. One, United was in on it or they are a bunch of idiots. So which one is it?

It is all psychology: People who desperately WANT to believe that mean old terrorists did it all and that the official story MUST be true are doing so out of a deep seated need for assurance that they are safe, and what could makew us less safe than a group of our own people, among others, who would murder thousands of us for geo-political goals and massive fortunes?

If our most sensitive posts in the intel game and the FBI and the military are infiltrated with Neocon operatives who agree with their vision and are more than willing to pull a 9-11, or another version of the USS Liberty, strafed and many killed for Israeli political goals. They have no compunctions about killing a few thousand..or million if need be, to inagurate their new vision for the world..with them at the top, of course.

There really can be no other reason: there is adequate evidence now to make a solid claim as to it being an inside job and identifying many of the players..but there is no mechanism to investigate and prosecute them; they control it all. The military operates on a basis where on that day, with all of the games running, and the false ' blips ' being placed on radar screens to confuse the ATC people, they were well able to stand down any response and send the jets over the ocean, away from their targets.

There is plenty of proof, but no forum to show it: The senate and congress are blind, deaf and dumb when 9-11 is mentioned: They know, they see..they are not stupid..they know what happened, but they are too afraid to be the first to say it..and too afraid of getting whacked, or exposed for their personal sins, to say a word at all. Remember when the Bush gang was taking Cipro a week BEFORE the anthrax came out? And the only senators to get some anthrax in the mail were the ones opposing the Patriot Act; they caved in and passed it.

Evidence? There is so much that therein lies the dilemma: Too much evidence seems to be so overwhelming to the common person that they cannot grasp it all and cannot conceive of there being so many proofs left dangling and obvious when no one on the networks talk about it..thats the issue: The common mans inability to see big pictures and only seeing the sound bites. God help us all: We are watching the worst crime in our history unfold as the perps laugh and mock us and flaunt their power. We are getting close to the end game.