FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

There is no proof of a boeing 757 crashing.

The shoot down theory is proven disinformation started by the people who brought you " Missile on the WTC " Pentagon Hologram ", WTC holograms, not controlled demo, NUKES,... etc.

These people actually start the silly theories so they can easily debunk them later looking 1/2 intelligent, but thats another thread.



As you can see no fuel, no fire, no parts, NO Boeing 757 at Shanksville on 9/11




Mabey they are looking for cruise missile parts?

???

THE SCREAMING THING

At the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing” that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Chris Smith, the groundskeeper at the golf course, said something with a “very loud screeching sound” passed over in the immediate vicinity of the golf course before he heard a huge explosion.

Cruise missile video. Look like a small white plane.


As far as tha fake crash site. Crash exercises are common.

Participants take part in a disaster drill for a staged plane crash at Ivalo airport in Finnish Lapland October 20, 2007. The joint exercise with participants from Britain, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden simulates a crash of a British charter flight to test emergency measures in the Barents region, local media reported.

Source

Looks like something like a military ordinnance (bomb/missile) created the crater after hitting the already present fissure/scar.

This next picture is of one of many natural "wing scars" that can be found within a couple of km's from the Shanksville missile crater.


This next scar is only meters away from the crater.


So you see. THe wing scars were present pre 9/11 which concluded that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.



Incase you didnt see the video




[edit on 7-2-2008 by IvanZana]

When I read your reply, i had to read it twice for i thought you must of been joking or atleast sarcastic but I am easily convinced now that your either misinfomed , scared of the truth or carry a personal grudge against 9/11 Truthers as you see them in the likeness of Squeegee kids or all of the above.

CaptainObvious in Quotations.

The grass didnt burn because .......Think of this - strike a match and quickly pass your finger through it. Did you get burned? No. Try the same thing with a piece of paper. Or grass.

Lol.Put your finger in alcohol or jet fuel then pass it through some flame, and dont bother telling how us much it hurt and burned you.

Are you aware that your trying to compare how a 600Mph, fully fueled comercial airplane crashing into the ground at over 600Mp/h at a 45 degree angle leaving a crater no longer than a full-size chevy car....
with a childhood experience playing with matches?

Do you think ATS members are so naive?

The fuel blew AWAY from where the photog was standing at impact, towards the trees. Remember the 40 degree impact angle? It was angled towards the trees. That's why the grass and trees on that side were burnt in that direction. Simple for most to understand that.

Now your reaching Are you making these theories up as you go along.

"The fuel Blew Away" - Like all your credibility and respect.

As far as your impact crater claim, wrong again. The crater direction and explosion damage on the upper parts of the trees, DO NOT LINE UP with the "official" direction of the plane.

Show some evidence, diagrams , graphs, anything other than just saying so. I wont be expecting anything new, convincing or even realistic. Ive seen it all.

The grass is not untouched. That's what you believe. I do not. Therefore, from my point of view, your q is invalid.

But you also believe that planes "atomize", jet fuel "blows away" , planes "vanish", people who question authority are "nutty" "stupid" "ignorant" so what you believe is just that.

The wings shattered into small pieces upon impact. Only small scattered pieces remained. Or are you suggesting that one would find intact wings?

Of course not. We expect to see a plane crash and we dont.
You have failed to prove one did as we all proved one didn't .

Remember, you shouldn't have to convince anyone that a massive commercial airliner crashed, those are usually self explanatory

Why are you trying so hard to?

The fuel was atomized and formed the fireball, some spread into the trees, catching them on fire.

The pictures ( the high quality ones) show no fire in the forest at all, no burnt grass , bark, etc.(pictures earlier in the thread proves these).

Lack of fire? Did I mention the trees? Do you see them in YOUR photos?

Yes, as it has been discussed and agreed upon that the tree damage was consistant with a high velocity explosion and not a plane crash fuel fire for the grass between the crater all way through to the end of the burn zone. No grass, bark, or branch was BURNED by jet fuel around the the crash site anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy you(s) finally answered.

Congratulations. You officially destroyed the official account for anyone trying to understand Shanksville/ Flight 93 by trying so manically to uphold it.

Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent theories on how a Boeing 757 and all its fuel 'Atomized' and"de-materialized" on impact without burning any surrounding grass around the small 10x30ft hole, when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the crash site disprove you.




CONCLUSION: No Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on September 11th,2001.
The pseudo crash site was to be used in the terror drill exercises. Some of the exercises included crashing a plane into the Pentagon and the WTC, some of the simulated a terrorist plane crash complete with bodies, ground pigs meat ( to act as body parts), plane parts, raging fire.

Check out this airplane crash..



Just a simulation, not real. That is just like the plane crash exercise at Shanksville on September 11th, 2001.



[edit on 7-2-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 7-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by L driver

 

The key question skeptics need to answer: what post-9/11 event depended on a fake crash in the middle of nowhere?

It was just icing on the cake really. An attack on the Pentagon alone would have been enough to lead us to war. Even if it really was al-Qaeda. Why did they need to attack with four planes?

My feeling is that Al-Qaeda's motive is no different than any other terrorist motive: to kill as many as possible for maximum shock value. So it makes sense that the WTC and the Pentagon and the White House (or wherever F93 was allegedly headed) would be targets. Especially as the terrorists could not be sure how many of the attacks would be successful, would you place all of your eggs in one basket, so to speak?. By contrast, F93, far from being icing on the cake, was absolutely pointless in accomplishing anything of substance for the government. Governments aren't going to needlessly increase their risk of being caught by 33% if the benefit is effectively zero. By contrast, the terrorists have much more to lose by putting all of their risk (of being stopped) in one plane.

Originally posted by jackinthebox



All you have shown me is fabricated data which stands in stark contrast to the obvious facts.

Which data was fabricated?

Originally posted by IvanZana

As far as your impact crater claim, wrong again. The crater direction and explosion damage on the upper parts of the trees, DO NOT LINE UP with the "official" direction of the plane.

The crater indicates a plane traveling from NW to SE. just as depicted by the FDR. As for the trees, you seem to be assuming that explosions can only travel in one direction.

reply to post by IvanZana

When I read your reply, i had to read it twice for i thought you must of been joking or atleast sarcastic but I am easily convinced now that your either misinfomed , scared of the truth or carry a personal grudge against 9/11 Truthers as you see them in the likeness of Squeegee kids or all of the above.


CaptainObvious in Quotations.
The grass didnt burn because .......Think of this - strike a match and quickly pass your finger through it. Did you get burned? No. Try the same thing with a piece of paper. Or grass.

Please provide a link to WHERE and WHEN i said this. I allowed you to post this incorrect quote SEVERAL times without reporting you to the MODS. This time I will report you.

When you are done removing this. Please address the questions from many on this thread.

Provide some PROOF to back your theory.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I will answer your dodge in regards to "fabricated data" by simply saying to you PROVE IT!

The evidence is there. You have to provide proof that the abundance of evidence that was gathered was fabricated.

Your posts show how much you do not know about flight 93. Ivan and you have not supplied this thread with a single piece of evidence. Please tell me where it is.

There is no proof of a boeing 757 crashing.




As you can see no fuel, no fire, no parts, NO Boeing 757 at Shanksville on 9/11

I have one simple question, which may have been addressed earlier, if so I apologize: has the "crater" ever been excavated for remains? I ask as I've never ever heard of that happening. As far as I can tell, authorities have bent over backwards to avoid that happening?
For the record, based upon eyewitness accounts of the day, it was shot down, IMHO.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

The evidence is there. You have to provide proof that the abundance of evidence that was gathered was fabricated.

No, actually, all that has to be done is to impeach the government's credibility. Once that is accomplished, the need for a new and thorough independent investigation becomes aparrent. None of the government's evidence can be accepted as credible if any piece of the evidence is not. Any evidence that may in fact actually be credible, must be verified, and cannot be accepted at face value just because the government says so.

And yes, I can prove that the government lied about 9/11.

Here is the lead engineer of the NIST report caught lieing.

Since the official story cannot be accepted as factual, it falls upon society to investigate the truth for themselves. There is no better community to uncover obscure facts, and to theorize the possibilites, than ATS.

Now asfar as the eyewitnesses, I would assume their view was no better than this picture and attached vid.
. Can you identify this plane?

No?

Watch the vid.


Do you think this is what hit shanksville?

It makes me sick to read this crap. I was there at the Flight 93 crash site for three weeks during the recovery. I was the Deputy Emergency Management Director for Somerset County at the time of the crash. I was on scene 15 minutes after the crash occurred. Myself along with others from my office were responsible for the corrdination of the recovery efforts after the crash. I am writing this, because of the fact that this conspiracy that Flight 93 never crashed near Shanksville, PA is total B.S. It's time to debunk this crap.

Yes there was a plane. What most people don't know is that this area was strip mined during the '80's and '90's. The ground is soft and the plane actually went into the ground. When I arrived on scene, I actually stood on the edge of the crater, saw plane parts (landing gears, metal framework and jet fuel) pooled in the crater. What was not reported in the mainstream media was the fact that a heavy equipment contractor was hired to excavate the site and they dug into the ground almost 15 feet until the got to the tail section of the plane. Once there, the plane was systematically removed along with human remails, luggage, and personal effects of the passengers. I witnessed a Uhaul truck that was rented by the FBI loaded with luggage and personal effects soaked in jet fuel. Most of the plane was broken into very small pieces for the force of the impact. There were many trees burned, not like was has been described here. I can go on and on about the physical evidence that I personally witnessed and hel in my hands. I helped recover plane parts and human remains for weeks after the crash. Flight 93 never happened? B.S. It happened, I was there. I saw it all.

Ya right, your the 5th guy to regurgitate the " I WAS THERE" crap......




I was there in too and like the eyewitnesses and pictures all prove that there was no boeing.

9/11:Flight 93 Eyewitness Says No 757 Crashed in Shanksville



Thanks for watching my video. There is no evidence of a boeing 757 crashing in shanksville on 911. No flight 93.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by bakeman1



NONSENSE!! If a contractor had been hired what was the name? Where is the proof? Where are the pictures of all this airplane being hauled out? Where in the world except a swamp or an ocean can a plane disappear? No way Jose.

The ground there would have to be like 50 feet deep of powder that no one could even walk on to have a plane disappear under it. To say that a huge airliner just sank is ridiculous. No way possible. You are just repeating what you were told, thats all. You never saw any luggage: No pi ctures of any suitcases have ever been shown..or clothes..or body parts. The coroner said that after he got there he was done because there was ' no blood, no bodies '.

We have been told over and over about the silly disappearing plane...a strip mine does NOT leave the ground like a giant cup of powdered sugar just waiting for someone to step in and sink out of sight..that is stupid. The ground there was hard enough to walk on and drive trucks on, and that means that a plane CANNOT sink out of sight in it.

Unless you cab back up what you said with photos or more than just another ' I was there ' claim, I will assume that you are either exaggerating terible or intentionally misstating the facts to support the official lie, for whatever reasons.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane going that fast to go totally underground on solid earth...no way, no how. That excuse is totally UNbelievable.

reply to post by bakeman1

The ground is soft and the plane actually went into the ground.

The ground did not "swallow" an entire airliner. If it did, the plane would not have shattered into millions of little pieces. You can't have it both ways. Even water does not "swallow" a plane upon impact.

I actually stood on the edge of the crater, saw plane parts... jet fuel... pooled in the crater.

Why was the fuel not burning?

Once there, the plane was systematically removed along with human remails...

Perhaps you should have turned over the "remains" to the coroner who found none.

...luggage and personal effects soaked in jet fuel.

Again, why didn't they burn?

Most of the plane was broken into very small pieces for the force of the impact.

I thought it was buried in the ground from the force of the impact.

I was there. I saw it all.

I think you should contact a Moderator to identify yourself. Lieing is not tolerated on ATS.




[edit on 2/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

My reference to "eyewitness accounts" refers to local residents who saw the "mysterious unmarked white plane" nearby at the time they saw/heard the mid-air explosion, as well as the reports of significant debris raining DOWN (from above) far enough from the site that it could not have been from the impact of a "swallowed" plane.

P S: It was very thoughtful of Mark Bingham to identify himself to his mother by full name, in case there might be another "Mark" who also called that woman "Mom"!

Originally posted by IvanZana
OPERATION NORTHWOODS mentions this perfectly. Reasearch it

"*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."



a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots
retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.


"

(C) fits flight 93 tale.

reply to post by jackinthebox

Exactly right, jackinthebox... How does the soft ground swallow the plane - yet at the same time shatter the plane into tiny pieces?

That 'witness' statement reads like complete fiction.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by thedman
The fuel cloud would ignite in impressive fireball. The cloud
would burn in a upward direction with little heat transfer to the ground

Yes it would...

Shanksville "Fireball"

Burning Airplane...



Jet Fuel Plume...



Same size plane... "Fireball"



I find it amazing how those that can't accept 'something is wrong' with the official story ignore all laws of physics and come up with "vaporizing aircraft" to explain things...

Well its okay because as soon as the government need more funds... something bigger will happen and all this will be swept under the table...

Maybe in 50 years when the 'perps' are all gone we will get the truth... I said maybe... we still don't have the answers to Kennedy

:shk:

Flight 93 smoke cloud is perfect for an aircraft crash. Flight 93 impact was at 600 mph making for a sudden fuel atomized as the wings were destroyed by KE event of 2000 pounds of TNT. The other impacts were a B-52 and the Airbus whose impacts were in the 100 pounds of TNT of KE. Not the same but as you can see the mushroom cloud is the same. Not much in the smoke to prove 93 did not hit.



There is no doubt Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania. No one has even got close to proving the DNA was wrong, the FDR was wrong, or the parts were not from flight 93. Evidence proves flight 93 impacted in Pennsylvania, there appears to be no real conspiracy story that holds water since there are no facts to support the conspiracy ideas that spring up.

reply to post by beachnut


Just because your sample pictures show a similar shape to the plume in Shanksville, DOES NOT mean they display the same characterisitcs overall.

The key factor, which is lacking in the Shanskville shot, is the thick column. The thick column represents the residual burn after the initial explosion. If you had time elapsed pictures, or video, you would see that the other two shots stayed burning, where in PA there was a single burst. This quick burst is characteristic of orndinance detonation.

You image comparison is pure disinformation.

[edit on 2/23/0808 by jackinthebox]