FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

More on the "round" crater:

SwampFox Disagrees but look at the picture Boone posted earlier:



I have circled the areas in question in red, you can clearly see the raised sides of a round impact crater. Now if an airliner struck this spot, the nose would have hit first, and the wings second. The center part of the crater would have formed before the "wing scars" so that the entire crater would be one large indention in the ground. The raised sides of the round impact crater make it seem that it was created AFTER the scar.

Here is Boone's original picture for comparison:




[edit on 31-12-2007 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by DrZERO
I have circled the areas in question in red, you can clearly see the raised sides of a round impact crater. Now if an airliner struck this spot, the nose would have hit first, and the wings second. The center part of the crater would have formed before the "wing scars" so that the entire crater would be one large indention in the ground. The raised sides of the round impact crater make it seem that it was created AFTER the scar

Of course, the middle crater area would be impacted by the reserve fuel tank, the rear of the fuselage, all the landing gear, and the tail assembly including the auxiliary power generator.

IvanZana, that bit of fuselage you posted, did anyone identify which piece of fuselage it was, and where it ended up?

reply to post by apex


Very good then, you see the round impact crater! I would be interested in John Lear's assessment as to your opinion of it's origin.

Do you have any comments on the original video linked to in the first post of this thread, ie. do you think the scar was there before the "crash?"

Originally posted by DrZERO
Very good then, you see the round impact crater! I would be interested in John Lear's assessment as to your opinion of it's origin.

Do you have any comments on the original video linked to in the first post of this thread, ie. do you think the scar was there before the "crash?"

Maybe it was there, but 7 years seems too long for it to be there prior and none to notice.

Now, care to interpret whether or not the APU would be in that line or not?


taken from
boeing website

First, Gibney denied any and all comments regarding the shoot down and there was a story created that he flew someone to Albany to run the rescue operation for SEMO of NY. Jacoby was the mans name. Again, one man to clear another and no questions asked. Same thing as Cheney and Mineta. Nothing has been debunked swamp..nothing.

Dr. Zero,
I apologize for not quite understanding your point. Was early morning, and I was a bit tired. I was thinking you meant a round crater you might find at a meteorite impact. This impact crater roughly matches what I would expect to see from an airliner slamming into the ground at a severe nose down atittude.

Originally posted by apex
Maybe it was there, but 7 years seems too long for it to be there prior and none to notice.

But someone did notice, that was the point of the video and the subject of this thread.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You bring up a good point, SwampFox, is that the type of crater/scar one would expect to find for this type of crash? Apex maintains the central crater walls were formed second due to heavier parts between and behind the wings as demonstrated by his lovely chart from Boeing.

Only one problem here, according to the Flight Data Recorder the plane did not go "straight in." Was it not pitched at something like 40 degrees? That would mean these "heavier parts" would not strike the same piece of ground as the nose. Would this not form a more elliptical impact crater then?

And neither of you have addressed the simple fact that there is un-burnt, unbroken grass growing out of a weathered scar where the wings/engines/fuel tanks supposedly hit. Why are you avoiding this observation?


[edit on 31-12-2007 by DrZERO]

reply to post by apex


Do people realize there is 10,000 square feet of fiberglass component in and outside the 757 and 767, including the hollow dome nose?

The engine housings are graphite and not the only location of graphite component in and outside the bodies of 767s and 757s. How much fiberglass, graphite or Kevlar-graphite was found where alleged Flight 93 has been touted to have crashed?

I do not care to see any "evidence" of fiberglass or graphite suddenly "discovered" 6+ years later. I want to see the original evidence the bureaucrats have touted to have found on or closely surrounding the date 9/11.

reply to post by DrZERO

And neither of you have addressed the simple fact that there is unburnt, unbroken grass growing out of a weathered scar where the wings/engines/fueltanks supposedly hit. Why are you avoiding this observation?

Some people have tried to explain this away as being the result of "atomized fuel." That the force of the impact was so great the fuel became atomized and detonated all at once above the crash site.

I have been trying to ascertain the direction of the impact in relation to the photos because I don't see how it matches up with the burn scar in the woods.

reply to post by jackinthebox


The un-burnt or un-scorched ground explained away by atomized fuel still does not explain why the grass in the scar is unbroken or the dirt in the scar is weathered and undisturbed.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by DrZERO

 

And neither of you have addressed the simple fact that there is unburnt, unbroken grass growing out of a weathered scar where the wings/engines/fueltanks supposedly hit. Why are you avoiding this observation?

Some people have tried to explain this away as being the result of "atomized fuel." That the force of the impact was so great the fuel became atomized and detonated all at once above the crash site.

I have been trying to ascertain the direction of the impact in relation to the photos because I don't see how it matches up with the burn scar in the woods.

So you don't know the direction of the plane, but believe that the burnt trees don't match up with the direction of the plane's travel?

How's that work?

Wouldn't you first need to know the plane's direction BEFORE you could come to that conclusion?

reply to post by DrZERO


Plus, the fact that "atomized" (evaporated/no vapor) petroleum carbon based oil fossil fuel leaves a very distinctive physical presence, whether burned or not. Vapor is a misnomer. Vapor is a mist not yet returned to full molecular unbound gases, which are unseen, untouchable, unheard, odorless and tasteless.

Originally posted by DrZERO
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

The un-burnt or un-scorched ground explained away by atomized fuel still does not explain why the grass in the scar is unbroken or the dirt in the scar is weathered and undisturbed.

I suggest you take another look at Ivan's photo again. The one with the fire dudes in the background.

The grass is in the foreground, outside the impact scar.

The dirt is freshly dug up.

reply to post by MikeVet


If people know the time of day photos are taken, they will know direction of both objects being photographed and position of the photograper - on sunny days - by the direction of shadows cast either in front or behind any 3-D object being photographed. I am inclined to conclude most people know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Shadows and their direction are a strong indication of direction of objects being photographed. Just as ancient sun dials told people what time it was during the day.

That hole direction, in relation to the grove of trees, indicated that alleged plane spun away from the direction of southeast on its belly. So, there should have been plenty of plane parts to be found, plus, crew, passengers, and luggage, IF there was actually any alleged Flight 93 plane crash at Shanksville.

reply to post by DrZERO


I don't see any grass in the scar from the wing. All I see is grass in between the photographer and the impact point.

If the ground was undisturbed, there would still be grass there.

Originally posted by MikeVet
I suggest you take another look at Ivan's photo again. The one with the fire dudes in the background.

The grass is in the foreground, outside the impact scar.

The dirt is freshly dug up.

Great idea, MikeVet, let's take another look. I have circled the scar that is the subject of this thread in red. This is supposed to be the scar formed from impact of the wing.



Please note the undamaged blades of grass growing out of this area, please note that the dirt there looks like it has been undisturbed and weathered for quite some time.

The green arrows point to the side of the round impact crater for reference.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by DrZERO

 

I don't see any grass in the scar from the wing. All I see is grass in between the photographer and the impact point.

If the ground was undisturbed, there would still be grass there.

That's the point, the area between the photographer and the "impact point" (pointed to by the green arrows) IS the scar in question.

And thanks for avoiding my original question, Boone and MikeVet. According to the USGS map, this scar was there in 1994. The photo above supports this claim as the dirt in the scar is weathered and there are blades of grass growing out of it.

Yet you have not made one post to address this, even though it is the subject of this thread.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by DrZERO

Originally posted by MikeVet
I suggest you take another look at Ivan's photo again. The one with the fire dudes in the background.

The grass is in the foreground, outside the impact scar.

The dirt is freshly dug up.

Great idea, MikeVet, let's take another look. I have circled the scar that is the subject of this thread in red. This is supposed to be the scar formed from impact of the wing.

Please note the undamaged blades of grass growing out of this area, please not that the dirt there looks like it has been undisturbed and weathered for quite some time.

The green arrows point to the side of the round impact crater for reference.

Nope, the only grass inside the wing impact area is at 1 o'clock in your red rectangle. Click on Ivan's photo and open in a new window. Now zoom to 200% That clump is half burned up. All the other grass is outside the impact area.

This happened in September. The ground was dry - no rains. Don't believe me? Then explain all the dry grass in zoomed out views. The dirt isn't weathered. It's dry and has been dug up by the wing.

reply to post by apex



How did a rear of an alleged plane end up sitting between two wings without leaving far,far more trace of any plane parts, passengers or luggage? Why from a Boeing 757 would there be nothing left but a 10' x 20' hole and what looks like two starbursts from a Christmas tree topper? Or from ariel views, Elmer Fudd's derby.

Originally posted by MikeVet

Nope, the only grass inside the wing impact area is at 1 o'clock in your red rectangle. Click on Ivan's photo and open in a new window. Now zoom to 200% That clump is half burned up. All the other grass is outside the impact area.

Wow, that grass inside the wing impact area must be pretty strong as even the grass at the "1 o'clock" position is undamaged. I disagree with your assessment of the location of the "impact scar." It clearly extends to the bottom center of the photograph/red square

This happened in September. The ground was dry - no rains. Don't believe me? Then explain all the dry grass in zoomed out views. The dirt isn't weathered. It's dry and has been dug up by the wing.

Thanks for clearing that up, MikeVet, I wasn't sure what month 9/11 occured in.


You are proving my point here, there was dried grass and dirt in the "wing scar." There was dried grass and dirt every where else. If that "wing scar" was fresh there would be no grass there and the dirt would look fresh.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by DrZERO]

reply to post by MikeVet


Is that area normally used for a landfill trash disposal? If so, that would explain carbon and other black looking residue in and around that hole, and nowhere else in the immediate vicinity of the hole. It is called composting by nature.