Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Badgered1

 

You think the ditch shown in the 1994 aerial photo is about the size and shape of an aircraft? Are you familiar with what aircraft look like?

Yes, a plane like a boeing 757 or 767 would leave a much larger than the imprint considered by the official ignorant story believers to be the crash site/ bomb crater of alleged flight 93.

It is a mark made by earthmoving equipment.

Or caused by the elements, i.e water. You are getting closer.

The "debris" in question were letters and light articles. Flight 93 was carrying postal cargo.

AMAZING! can you explain how "mail" can survive but landing gear, fuselage, 100's of seatbelt buckles, miles of wire, tons of titanium, 100's of seats, carpeting, luggage, 100's of windows, engines, tail section disapperead? Not to mention thousands of gallons of jet fuel....

Grass was photographed growing untouched in the crater where the wings should have entered.-----

Hooper---No, there is a photo, taken from a distance, that includes dry grass in the foregorund outside of the impact zone.

Can you smell it? Liar. Here is the an image that you have seen hundreds of times and want to imagine it doesnt exist.

As you can see there is GRASS growing out of the dents you claim were made by wings. Notice, no fuel, no fire, no broken grass.... did I mention GRASS growing? Umm yes I did. Stop while you are so far behind Hooper.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a8a7b044c3b.jpg[/atsimg]

This is an old story.
Boy, did you say a mouthful.

That will never go away. No Boeing 757 crashed there. That is a fact.

Look again. This image was taken before any clean up. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7078d512998.jpg[/atsimg] If you want to contest the time of the pic was taken I can upload the EPA pictures which show when they started to dig up.... nothing....


To experts and to the lamen, they all have concluded that No Boeing 757 or 767 crashed in the that field on 911.



[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Badgered1

 

Yes, much larger than the imprint considered by the official ignrorant story believers to be the crash site of alleged flight 93.

I'll take that as a "no" you are not familiar with the size and shape of aircraft.

Or caused by the elements, i.e water. You are getting closer.

Seven years before Flight 93 crashed there, no evidence that what it looked like on 9/11/01;

AMAZING! can you explain how "mail" can survive but landing gear, fuselage, 100's of seatbelt bukles, miles of wire, tons of titanium, disapperead?

Wow! You were there on 9/11/01? Is that how you state, with such knowing authority, that none of that material was found there? Or, and I am just guessing here, are you basing this fabrication on your personal professional analysis of one photo?

Can you smell it? Liar. Here is the an image that you have seen hundreds of times and want to imagine it doesnt exist.
As you can see there is GRASS growing out of the dents you claim were made by wings. Notice, no fuel, no fire, no broken grass.... did I mention GRASS growing? Umm yes I did. Stop while you are so far behind Hooper.

Again, I am in awe, of course, to your obviously superior photo analysis skills. And exactly where did I claim that the contours on the photo were caused by the impact of the wings???



Couldn't help but notice in that last photo you conveniently cut off the edge of the photo showing the blue tent and the erect light plants. But these were all there before the clean up, right?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Badgered1

 

And exactly where did I claim that the contours on the photo were caused by the impact of the wings???

So what are you trying to say?.... That the dents that you and your team of 2 or 3 that cling to the official story daily here on these forums claim were caused by wings were not caused by wings? Then what you are implying is that the "dents" or crevass were present before 911. You cant have it both ways.

You are right if you are claiming in this round that they were not caused by wings because it was not, this has been proved years ago...

So then the conclusion is that whatever caused that round crater in Shanksville on 9/11 was not caused by what is claimed to be Flight 93 a commercial airliner. Boeing 757 or 767 because it had no wings that were consistant with an aircraft even remotley close to the dimensions of the plane in question.

Yessss!

, Are you moving the goal posts again? Are you changing the story over and over when confronted with evidence that makes your attempts to obsefucate the truth a futile attempt at pseudo intelligent observations or are you reading the official script?




[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I do consider you a knowledgeable source when it comes to aircraft aspects. Even though we do not agree on certain things in this 911 saga, I do respect you & your experience.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


You are making assumptions about the cause or background to every contour in the photo - I am not. I do not know the existing topography before the crash - and neither do you.

You are pretty much arguing with yourself. You are stating that someone in an official capacity has claimed that the contours in the foreground are a direct result of the wingspan impact and then trying to negate a non-existent claim by observing that the grass is not sufficiently distrubed.

First show where anybody has officially claimed that the contours are in fact, the result of the wing impact and then prove that the condition is impossible.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I do not know the existing topography before the crash...

Well It is on a hill and it is very soft dirt.....

You are stating that someone in an official capacity has claimed that the contours in the foreground are a direct result of the wingspan impact and then trying to negate a non-existent claim by observing that the grass is not sufficiently distrubed.

So what you are saying is that the there is no wing damage on the ground from the alleged crash of flight 93. Interesting.

First show where anybody has officially claimed that the contours are in fact, the result of the wing impact and then prove that the condition is impossible.

Therefore what you are saying again is that what is usually mistakened for "wing scars" was not caused by wings at all and therefore streangthens the fact that the wing scars were present before 9/11 or atleast before the crater was called a Boeing 757 "crash site". Thank you.

The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 (Flight 93) because no wings or tail section impacted the ground. All there is a 10x30 foot round crater that mimics the damage cause by a cruise missile or bomb but most certainly not Flight 93 the Boeing 757.


View this picture. Skeptics and official story sellers claim this was caused by a large commercial airliner. As you can see it was not. What appears to be wing marks are proven not to be. So therefore what caused that crater was not a Boeing 757



[edit on 15-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[

As you can clearly see in this image above is that what is mistaken for wing impressions are really not caused by wings at all and were most likely present pre-9/11.

All that is left is a round crater consistant with a bomb or cruise missile which supports what one of the eyewitnesses say. "A van sized craft with no windows, zipping at ground level then darted up in the air, inverted, then crashed."

Aside from guessing what may of caused the crater one thing is for certain that it was not caused by a Boeing 757 (flight 93)



[edit on 15-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Here is the Iranian plane crash. As you can see there is no debate that the wreakage was from a large plane.





Flight 93 did not crash in Shankville on 911. That is a lie. research this yourself. If anything was shot down it was not over this crater and did not cause this crater. The dimensions have been proven to be too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757 (flight 93)


More than likey belivers of the official story and trolls will say that the iran plane crash was not terrorism but it wont make sense because this plane most likely had less kinetic force when it hit the ground yet caused more damage to the topography considering the terrain was similar to the Shankville field.

research more here. Video included www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

The photos clearly leave one thinking that something is not right. I mean, what are the odds? The area that I believe needs to be looked into is who exactly died in a plane crash in 1994? Who was it and what did they do and for whom? It just seems that if this was dry run test to work out the bugs before 911 then someone had to die to achieve that crast test and as such there may be a link or clue to those that crashed and died back in 1994.

Just a thought, but without a doubt there is something to this anomoly that just has to be pursued to be better understood. Maybe not, but its a lead and all leads should be pursued to their truthful end. Besides, its a good quality to be able to even find the anomoly in the first place. Now we must investigate to determine if the crash in 1994 reveals any new clues that might make some matters better understood post 911.

Hooper, it really does not seem that you are searching for any other hypothesis on what happened at Shanksville than what you have been told by the media.
I'm looking for an answer. So far, I'm working on what evidence there is available. If, by some miracle, there comes a time when the OS actually makes sense, I will take that into consideration. So far I've been disappointed.

Now when the terrorists hijacked the plane, they used "boxcutters" right?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


By using the Iranian plane crash example, you are simply proving everyon'e point about UA 93.

Yes, as you noted, the Iranian jet didn't impact with the same KE as United 93. BUT, it was very high KE, as shown by the extreme fragmentation.

BTW, again the continued repeat of the image from Shanksville (which, unlike your claim, is more than "30X10 feet") doesn't tell the whole story.

OTHER posters have provided the additional photos that show the rest of the debris, it has NEVER been asserted that all of the B-757 was located in the photo that you keep showing again, and again.

Also, the type of soil where the Iranian jet hit is different --- harder, more compacted and more dense.

Remember that many items from UA 93 were found quite deep, as much as 25 FEET below the surface in the case of one recorder (the CVR I think).

Can you imagine the energy required for something the size of a CVR to penetrate 25 feet!??? Now, consider what sort of soil composition would also be necessary.

Let's say, just for argument, that the area was more sand than hard, compacted dirt and soil. Does the image in your mind change, then?

Also, much of the underground areas include old growth remnants, roots, whatever, further providing more density. Every area is NOT the same.

In a reclaimed strip mine region, there is not likely to be any old plant material of that sort. ALSO, I found and posted a link to OTHER reclaimed strip mine sites, in other parts of Pennsylvania, that discussed the voids and open areas found deep below the surface further indicating that items could be "swallowed" up in a sense, especially with so much momentum from the KE.

Finally, the real clincher is the many reports of the strong smell of jet fuel at the site. Most missiles use solid fuels. Let's read more:

ATMOSPHERIC JET PROPULSION SYSTEM.

—There are three types of atmospheric jet propulsion systems—the turbojet, pulsejet, and ramjet engines. Of these three systems, only the turbojet engine is currently being used in Navy air-launched missiles. A typical turbojet engine includes an air intake, a mechanical compressor driven by a turbine, a combustion chamber, and an exhaust nozzle. The engine does not require boosting and can begin operation at zero acceleration.

Think about a missile design, and just how little room there is for much fuel, assuming you have one using a turbojet engine, and using jet fuel for energy. When such a missile reaches its target, there is likely very little fuel left. This is why they are range-limited.

Compare to the STRONG smell of jet fuel in Shanksville, since there were still thousands of gallons of fuel onboard UA 93.

Other missile types:

THERMAL JET PROPULSION SYSTEM

Thermal jets include solid propellant, liquid propellant, and combined propellant systems. As an AO, you come in contact with all three systems. The solid propellant and combined propellant systems are currently being used in some air-launched guided missiles. The majority of air-launched guided missiles used by the Navy use the solid propellant rocket motor.

www.ordnance.org...

Rather than continually shouting "missile!" it's sometimes a good idea to do some research to learn and understand just what and what NOT a missile is, can and can't do.

reply to post by mikelee


Yes the crash in 1994 in Beaver County Pa. A 737 crashed on approach.

reply to post by van001


Copy that. Thanks.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I couldnt help but notice the OBVIOUS similarities between a photo from the recent crash and Flight 93:



and



Hmm very interesting! Looks to me like they are very similar indeed!

reply to post by GenRadek


And here too:





And here!





Huh, are people so blind, they can't see the forest, through the trees?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I couldnt help but notice the OBVIOUS similarities between a photo from the recent crash and Flight 93:



and

Hmm very interesting! Looks to me like they are very similar indeed!

If that looks the same as the Shanksville PA crash to you then...Well, if I type what I'm thinking I'm sure a Mod would be right in here as they are with the "911 Truther Madness" censorship logo.

* There were no shoot down orders for that plane there however there were such orders for the one that crashed in Shanksville PA.

* That plane didn't didn't turn around and begin to head towards the DC area after 3 other planes used in an act of terrorism hit their targets. The plane in Shanksville PA did.

* Donald Rumsfeld, SECDEF on 911 didn't say that plane had been shot down. However he did say that the plane over Pennsylvania WAS SHOT DOWN.

* That plane there has a massive amount of debris some of which is substancial in size. The aircraft that was shot down over Pennsylvania did not leave such debris.

* That plane there was not involved in one the most narrow minded & ignorant developed fairy tales under the half assed pretense of an "investigation" such as the 911 Commission's Report (the OS) But the plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania was.

Any half witted person can see there are no similarities between that plane's crash site and the that of the plane who the Secretary of the Department of Defense stated was shot down over Pennsylvania.

Spelling correction



[edit on 15-1-2010 by mikelee]

If you want to know what the terrain was like in Shanksville prior to 9/11, there is a very simple way to find out. Just go out there and interview some locals who were familiar with the area before 9/11. This should have been done immediately after the alleged incident, however, when you're conducting a bozo cover-up investigation, opening a can of worms is the last thing you are interested in doing. And these guys get paid good money to conduct accurate and thorough investigations? Ouch!

I am going to trust the impressions of the first responders and some initial media reports on this one. Several of them stated the alleged crash site did not have the appearance of a large passenger airliner having impacted there due to an overwhelming LACK of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. I'll leave the flying upside down story, the burying of the airliner in soft earth story and the incinerating of heavy mechanical parts and bodies story for the creative dimwits.

Shanksville was the fourth and final chapter on 9/11. It defined the faceless enemy of terror and gave the impression Americans are resilient and would fight back once challenged. Everyone was drugged up on jingoism and hell bent on revenge that they overlooked the steaming pile of hot manure they had just been served. Creating this mindset set the framework for the illegal, unjust and immoral wars to follow.

reply to post by mikelee


So you DONT see the same type of charred debris and shreds of aircraft in the Shanksville crash crater? Geeze, take your blinders off and take a good close look. I see the same type of debris in BOTH craters. Hence why i used BOTH pictures. But hey, if you are so convinced there was no plane that you have to willfully embrace ignorance and completely ignore the debris visible in the Shanksville crater, well then I guess nothing will change your view or way of thinking. I know some people blindly accept or believe whatever, but to this extreme?

reply to post by mikelee


Also, why AGAIN do we see ZERO evidence of a shootdown? No physical evidence WHATSOEVER. None, nadda, zip. We've been over this fact countless times, and yet you and others COMPLETELY IGNORE this. Where is the debris that would have fallen off the aircraft before the impact found earlier along its track? Where is all that? where are the larger pieces? Why does the debris field extend with light debris DOWNWIND instead of upwind? All the debris is found in the direction of travel and downwind of the crater. A shootdown would be nothing like this.

Originally posted by Badgered1
Hooper, it really does not seem that you are searching for any other hypothesis on what happened at Shanksville than what you have been told by the media.
I'm looking for an answer. So far, I'm working on what evidence there is available. If, by some miracle, there comes a time when the OS actually makes sense, I will take that into consideration. So far I've been disappointed.

Now when the terrorists hijacked the plane, they used "boxcutters" right?

Exactly what is involved and why in a "search" for an alternative hypothesis? Why are you searching? Do like everyone else, make one up, look only at the things that support that hypothesis and ignore everything else. There, its done. Hope I was of some help to you.