9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?

A 757 seven crashing into dry dirt leaves no bodies, wreckage, engines etc. Swallowed up by the Earth....

Valuejet 592 crashes into a swamp leaving bodies, wreckage etc. See valujet 15-20 .jpg.

This pilot's report states it looking like "garbage" dumped all over, commenter reports a child's foot being picked up:

Youtube video

Soft muddy swamp, 70 degree angle, wreckage and bodies recovered.

Dirt field, 45 degree angle, all bodies and evidence swallowed by the ground.

BOGUS....beyond credulity.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

First, please try to read my post a little more carefully, words are important. I said after the cleanup had begun. Not after the cleanup. Those are two different time frames.

The cleanup didn't begin until 9/12 (as I showed you), so that means you think that photo was taken on 9/12.

Hints - yes one big one - look at the light plants...

When I said "Are there any other clues...", I meant OTHER than the tent and light posts.

If the photo were taken on the morning of 9/11 the mast would not be vertical.

I said "That aerial looks to be taken well in the afternoon." Please try to read my post a little more carefully, words are important.

Second, look at the two vehicles in the photo (the prosecution exhibit - I forget the #). Think about this - if it was still the morning or even the afternoon of 9/11 do you really think that the only two vehicles in the area would be just two civilian cars and just three people walking around?

You got some amazing eyes if you can determine those two vehicles are civilian cars!

The FBI was securing the area on 9/11, that means keeping people out. I wouldn't expect to see a bunch of people walking around, but would expect to see things like those two policemen on horses guarding the scene, or are they civilians too?!

Absolutely not.

No Boeing 757 crashed into the strip mine near Shanksville on 9-11-2001.

Nor any other jet-fuel laden aircraft.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23a785f59412.jpg[/atsimg]

No, i do not believe a 757 or any other airplane crashed there, All i see is a whole in the ground, no wreckage or bodies= no plane..

I believe 93 was shot down and the comic book story of the heroic passengers vs.the evil terrorist masterminds was simply concocted to avoid having to tell the nation and the world that the USAF shot them down.

No! No plane crashed in Shanksville PA. there was no physical proof or serial numbers to match to said plane crash debris, nothing. Only staged photos fabricated by the FBI.

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Full Article Here

pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by impressme


It is easy for the FBI to SEED political crime scenes. They do it all the time.

They are NOT the heroic crimefighters as falsely depicted by propagandist Hollywood.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c4000f43519.jpg[/atsimg]

no plane crashed in shanksville.

the truth is quite overt in this case.

planes do not leave silhouette like holes of themselves in the ground or in buildings for that matter.

but i suppose too many people are accustomed to cartoon world physics.

I forgot to vote!

No plane crashed in Shanksville (obviously).

You got to be an idiot if you think one did IMHO.

reply to post by ATH911


The mast being vetical is an indication that the photo was taken on 9/12 or later. You generally don't bother to erect the mast until you need to use the lights which, of course would not have been until after dark in 9/11 therefore the photo was probably taken on or after 9/12.

Two reasons you don't erect the mast until it is time to move them:

1) They are difficult and clumsy to move around with the mast erected and you also tend to brake the very expensive bulbs when you move them around like that.

2) Until it is dark you really don't know where exactly you are going to need light.

Also, why are you assuming that no kind of clean up began until after 9/12?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Colonel David Hackworth reported that there was an Air Force Officer on duty the day of 911 that did not obey the Cheney order to "stand down". It was that AF Officer who saved the day and kept the US from being put under "martial law" since Flight 93 was headed for Capital Hill. Now of course I can't find that story on the net. If anyone can I would really appreciate a URL to it. Hackworth made his claims according to inside info that he was privy to due to his long military career and many contacts within the Pentagon. But... who knows? That's life... plausible deniability. I have seen many plane crashes and not one has "liquefied". Hackworth's story might explain the "shoot down/stand down" enigma.

reply to post by hooper

Is part of the reason you think that aerial photo was taken on 9/12 was because there so few debris strewn around? That it was taken after a lot of debris was already picked up?

My vote is NO, though I don't feel like going into debate over it right now. I can't count the amount of times I have done so and it still leaves the same results.

To anyone that DOES believe a plane crashed there, I have a few questions directed towards all of you.

1. What evidence, besides what Big Brother (government) has told you, leads you to believe a plane crashed on that day?

2. Despite all the 'miraculous' coincidences that happened on 9/11 and the fact that this just might be one of them - please, direct me to a plane crash of this nature where no bodies or significant wreckage was found?

3. Direct me to a point in history where an impact and explosion that was powerful enough to shred and atomize steel, happened to be avoided by various paper objects and a cotton bandanna?



I figure at the very least, if you are going to be monkeys, I might as well give you some bananas to chase after.

reply to post by gwydionblack



The majority of the people who research or review the evidence claiming that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11 all agree that one didnt. The physics, the evidence and story given to claim one did doesnt add up. We understand that the claim is one did and the photos of a piece of fuselage was meant to support the idea that one did but considering the 'evidence' was presented 5 years after the fact with no context leaves most people with the impression that Flight 93, the Boeing 757 DID not crash at all for the crater is much too small and the lack of wreckage tell us that.

We can be presented with evidence that one did but the evidence presented is being offered by the very people that are being accused of a cover up.

Why would they fake a crash? Who knows exactly? Someone does. On 911 there were multiple hijacking exercises and drill running. I have witnessed mock airline crash drills and I will tell you, we all believed one occured, the evidence was there (staged) the emergency services were strained and then we were told later on that it was a drill. These drills are to test the response of agencies and emergency personnel in realtime while thinking it was a real crash.

Many people that witnessed the craft before it allegedly crashed claim not to see a large Boeing 757, some people say it was rocking left to right others say it was close to the ground, inverted and then others say it dove out of the sky and nose dived upside down.

What is interesting is upon listening to the phone calls that allegedly came from flight 93, there was no indication from the passengers that the plane was flying erratically or diving when the FDR claims that as the calls were taking place the plane was indeed flying erratically and diving which would of been told by the people calling. the g's alone would of terrified people. These mistakes were also captured on flight 11.

I cant seem to convince anyone that the crater in Shanksville was caused by a Boeing 757. When I tell them that the FBI says one did and it happened on 911 people are surprised and almost immediately become closet 911 truthers. They begin to investigate then share the truth.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]

My answer would be....


NO 757 in that hole!

i'm 100% sure that 9/11 was an inside job and i'm also a sceptic and would not like to say if flight 93 hit the ground where they said it hit or not but beleive it may had been shoot down.

Trouble is cell phone don't work on planes even a few 100 feet off the ground and i got that information from a top pilot here in the UK who often tried his mobile phone to get his misses to come and pick him up from work.

Some planes do have internal phones but i don't think everyone could use them at the same time.

Where in the investigation into dumpfault calling the fighter jets back or do they think they are above the law in which case i agree they are.

Originally posted by theability
My answer would be....


NO 757 in that hole!

Well, at least you got the plane right.

The OP has several threads, and keeps calling it a 767.

Kinda makes me wonnder......

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Let me clarify.....

The Hole In Shanksville was NOT caused by Flight 93 the Boeing 757

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Let me clarify.....

The Hole In Shanksville was NOT caused by Flight 93 the Boeing 757

So glad that's cleared up. So when can we expect this earth shattering, revolutionary absolute fact to appear somewhere besides submitted by anonymous posters on conspiracy website forums???