Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Originally posted by lookingup4it
I have been a first responder to 3 small plane crashes. There is always wreckage.

And the smaller and slower they are, they messier they are, right?

Now. Consider a goddamned Boeing 757-200, rapidly descending at between 300 and 500 miles per hour, with pieces falling off because it was hauling ass and barrel-rolling at cruising speed in dense lower atmosphere, plowing straight into a field of loose soil and exploding on impact.

Nevermind the ignition of jet fuel. The impact alone at near 500 mph would damn-near blast everything into confetti.

Were your "small plane crashes" estimated to be traveling at near-500 mph? No. Small aircraft usually crash in the 100 to 200 mph range.

That's a big difference. Small plane crashes are messy. Big plane crashes are mind-blowing, physics-defying puzzles that must be studied for months.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The only thing that is "physics defying" is the lack of evidence of a boeing ever being in that hole, just another amazing coincidence that the scar which was there before the crash is where the plane vanished into.

irrefutably against all other arguments the sheriff who was there said "there aint no plane crashd here'.
And the statemnt from the coroner stating that there are no bodies.
this is the real edge of occams razor.

Originally posted by The X
just another amazing coincidence that the scar which was there before the crash is where the plane vanished into.

care to show us this scar?

irrefutably against all other arguments the sheriff who was there said "there aint no plane crashd here'.

care to show us that exact quote? And just how many crashes of airliners hitting the ground at that velocity had he attended?

And the statemnt from the coroner stating that there are no bodies.

care to show us the exact quote? Just why did you expect whole bodies?


[edit on 31/12/09 by dereks]

dereks are you from sweden?

id like you to point out to me where the marks are in the ground where the engines entered, or did the ground "magically" reconstitute itself to appear as though no plane actually entered.

Do you have an aversion to googling information that goes against your pet theories, the sheriffs statements are out there watch hoodwinked at shanksville on youtube and google for yourself USGS aerial photo of the shanksville crash site.
You see it comes across as though you are not really interested in the truth and only in keeping people chasing their tails around and around the Official lie, just for once behave like someone interested in the truth and look for it yourself.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by The X]

i remember watching it on the news along with the pentagon crashes the pieces didn't add up to enough wrecked i don't mean to say that FBI are liars but there are a lot of valid point for why they happened just look around and see

But just in case you cant because your knackered belief system wont let you.





[edit on 31-12-2009 by The X]


can an admin please fix the youtube links, thanks.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by The X]



[Mod edit - embed video]

[edit on 31/12/2009 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Judging from the various witness accounts, which described the descent and impact of UA93, and knowing what I know about the dynamics of demolition, yes, I do think that UA93 plunged straight into an area of loose earth, exploded on impact, embedding most of its shattered wreckage below ground and scattering a good portion of it, like confetti, over the surrounding area.

The information provided backs up the conclusion.

OK, you're obviously on the "skeptic" side.

Now I've been trying to tell your fellow skeptics that what you believe above is the official story, buy most skeptics on here seem to disagree with that, so you skeptics have a problem. You guys can't have it both ways.

Wally Miller's explanation of what he said and why in his own words and Dylan Avery's opinions on it:



You won't need the magic mirror on the wall to determine who's the shiftiest in the land (it's not Wally)

reply to post by Pilgrum



love the fact that the interviewer had to teach Dylan Avery what a freaking simile was....well that doesn't surprise me, because its seems that most truthers do not know what a simile is either.





[Mod Edit - replace quote with Reply To Tab]

[edit on 31/12/2009 by Sauron]

Whoever issued the certificates allowing both the plane at Shanksville and the Pentagon to fly needs prosecuting ! Obviously they were too brittle and fatigued to be safe to fly ? For those aircraft to break up into such small pieces surely thats it ? Metal fatigue ?

Originally posted by ATH911
Again skeptics,

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Just out of curiosity - what kind of answer are you looking for? I mean do you want GPS coordinates? Baseline coordinates? Do you want specific photos? What is it you want to hear?

The wreckage was on and around the impact point. Some of it was embedded in the soil at the impact point and some of it was integrated with the displaced soil from the impact.

Most of it can be seen in the few photos that have been released. However, you have arbitrarily declared, without any sound basis, that those photos represent only 2% of the total wreckage. Please provide some basis for either your 2% declaration or some sound explanation why the photos do not represent a majority of the remains of the airplane.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
Again skeptics,

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Just out of curiosity - what kind of answer are you looking for? I mean do you want GPS coordinates? Baseline coordinates? Do you want specific photos?

Hooper mate as a neutral i think what the poster is ultimately saying is that the photographs from Shanksville don't seem to depict what thousands of other aircraft crash site photo's do ? Namely any significant pieces of wreckage ? Which if i am honest i must agree with ! I am not taking sides here i respect both your views and his but will you not admit that by there very appearance these photographs are highly unusual ?

Respects

Originally posted by ProRipp

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911
Again skeptics,

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Just out of curiosity - what kind of answer are you looking for? I mean do you want GPS coordinates? Baseline coordinates? Do you want specific photos?

Hooper mate as a neutral i think what the poster is ultimately saying is that the photographs from Shanksville don't seem to depict what thousands of other aircraft crash site photo's do ? Namely any significant pieces of wreckage ? Which if i am honest i must agree with ! I am not taking sides here i respect both your views and his but will you not admit that by there very appearance these photographs are highly unusual ?

Respects

This poster is just playing a little game. The poster knows that there are very few published photos of the crash scene becuase of the sensitive nature of the event and the fact that any detailed photographs that would depict all the wreckage would also depict the remains of the innocent deceased which is generally frowned upon here. Plus the poster likes to lean on ambigous terms, "like", "seems" which is all well and good if you are writing a high school essay, but when you are openly accusing honest people of being complicit in murder the standards should be a little higher, don't you think?

There are a number of published photos from the Mossaui trial that depict the wreckage but the poster argues that they don't show a sufficient amount of wreckage. I have, to no avail, challenged him to prove that with something other than "it don't look like". Or concede that there are no rational basis for his accusations.

There are a number of events in world history where it would be nice to have more photographic records, but we have what we have and when you compound that with all the full statements made by people that were there, you end up with a clear and complete picture.

reply to post by hooper


I heard someone who was actually at the scene state in a TV interview that it 'looks like someone took a bulldozer gouged a hole and threw some 'rubbish' in'

and to me thats exactly what it looks like ! I don't wish to upset anyone and if people did die in a plane crash in Shanksville may they rest in peace, but i have real concerns and doubts about what actually went on here ! I must state once again i am not out to upset one side or the other but as a neutral looking on I am only stating what i see and percieve ! Also with past history of false flag operations by not just the U.S. but various gov'ts around the world, alarm bells naturally ring for some people too ! Don't you agree hooper ?

Respects

Edited becaus of bad spelling on my part apologies !


[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago31 by ProRipp]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Were your "small plane crashes" estimated to be traveling at near-500 mph? No. Small aircraft usually crash in the 100 to 200 mph range.

Thats where you are wrong. Payne Stewarts small Learjet hit the ground at very high speed. It also left a lot of debris making a crater almost the size of the crater supposidly made by a 757.

en.wikipedia.org...
Impact occurred approximately 1713Z, or 1213 local, after a total flight time of 3 hours, 54 minutes, with the aircraft hitting the ground at a nearly supersonic speed and an extreme angle.[3] The Learjet crashed just outside of Mina, South Dakota, in Edmunds County on relatively flat ground, and left a crater 42 feet (13 m) long, 21 feet (6.4 m) wide and 8 feet (2.4 m) deep. None of its components remained intact.

reply to post by ATH911


Well there were at least three United employees there. I met one of them a couple of years ago at a remembrance ceremony. She was a friend of Sandy Bradshaw and was sent by the airline to help at the site. While there arent many public photos of the wreckage, according to her there was no arguing that it was a 757 that had crashed there.

Long article from Australia newspaper THE AGE year after - interviews
Wallace Miller

Miller reveals that on impact forward 1/3 of Flight 93 broke off and
slammed into tree line beyond the strip mine. Remainder plunged into
soft ground

www.theage.com.au...

To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground, the cockpit and first-class cabin broke off, scattered into millions of fragments that spread and flew like shrapnel into and through the trees 20 metres away.

A section of the engine, weighing almost a tonne, was found on the bed of a catchment pond, 200 metres downhill.

Some of the plane's cargo was found intact ? 200 kilograms of mail in the hold, a Bible, its cover scorched but its pages undamaged and later, as the excavation began, the passport of one of the four hijackers.

The rest of the 757 continued its downward passage, the sandy loam closing behind it like the door of a tomb. Eventually these pieces and its human cargo ? the heroes and the cowards, as a message left at the nearby temporary memorial put it ? came to rest against solid rock, 23 metres below the surface

The scene was captured in a picture taken soon after by a local photographer, Mark Stahl. Published in a magazine commemorative book, the scene is remarkable for its total absence of urgency.

The point of impact, about 10-12 metres across, is black and smoking. According to Miller it was about three metres deep. In Stahl's photograph it looks more like an excavation.

Four men stand next to the crater, one with his back to it. Two others stand nearby, next to an unmarked Chevrolet Suburban. One of the men has a hand on his hip.

Other photos taken at the scene by Miller show a small furrow, like a hand-dug drainage ditch, running back from the crater. This was the mark left by a wing.

"It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled. "Usually, when you see a plane crash on TV, you see the fuselage, the tail or a piece of something. The biggest piece I saw was as big as this (spreading his hands less than a metre apart). It was as though someone took a tri-axle dump truck and spread it over an acre."

As for body parts

Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached.

"I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation," Miller said. "The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised."

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by hooper

 

I heard someone who was actually at the scene state in a TV interview that it 'looks like someone took a bulldozer gouged a hole and threw some 'rubbish' in'

and to me thats exactly what it looks like ! I don't wish to upset anyone and if people did die in a plane crash in Shanksville may they rest in piece, but i have real concerns and doubts about what actually went on here ! I must state once again i am not out to upset one side or the other but as a neutral looking on I am only stating what i see and percieve ! Also with past history of false flag operations by not just the U.S. but various gov'ts around the world, alarm bells naturally ring for some people too ! Don't you agree hooper ?

Respects

First and foremost - if you are not out to offend anybody, the phrase is "rest in peace" I can't even begin to tell you how offensive your version would be to friends, family and loved ones of the deceased.

Second, as to the allegations regarding "history of false flag operations", most of those allegations are themselves conspiracy fantasies generally only known or acknowledged by devoted followers in the microscopic conspiracy sub cult.

Originally posted by hooper
I can't even begin to tell you how offensive your version would be to friends, family and loved ones of the deceased.

At lease he is not as bad as you and others who keep speading the lies of the media.

How can you you be so disrespectful of the friends, family and loved ones of the deceased?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I can't even begin to tell you how offensive your version would be to friends, family and loved ones of the deceased.

At lease he is not as bad as you and others who keep speading the lies of the media.

How can you you be so disrespectful of the friends, family and loved ones of the deceased?

Now wait, you don't even think a plane crashed so how can you know there are deceased?