Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story?

Originally posted by earthdude
I still have seen no photos of the excavation of the plane. I guess they decided to stop taking photos? It does not use much bandwith to post a link to one, Mr. OS?

There was a report that the FBI either took or confiscated over 4,000 photos of the crime scenes.

I do not know if they are going to be released or if its going to take FOIA requests to try to get them released.

Originally posted by hooper
Actually, I have seen at least one, I think it may have been on the EPA website. I'll see if I can find it again.

Is that link also going to support your claim of 93s parts being stored?

It makes no sense to "Quote" the post above your own and it simply takes up server space for no reason whatsoever.

Please consider this a reminder. Possible warnings are next.

Thank you

Semper

[edit on 4/12/2010 by semperfortis]

Hi,

I am trying to acquire this file:

AQ00081 ABC Nightline's June 10, 1998 broadcast of John Miller's interview of Usama Bin Laden recorded on May 28, 1998 [This video runs 52 minutes, 34 seconds, and is copyrighted by ABC News]


Unfortunately, the original link is now dead, and only a 16 minute clip remains. Would you happen to have the full 52 min 34 sec video saved on your harddrive? If so, I'd be happy to give you a drop-box log-in to share it.

originally posted by: Six Sigma



Greetings Mr. Remisne,

I hope this helps:

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A
Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Exhibit# AQ00081

ABC Nightline's June 10, 1998 broadcast of John Miller's interview of Usama Bin Laden recorded on May 28, 1998 [This video runs 52 minutes, 34 seconds, and is copyrighted by ABC News]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


Exhibit# AQ00081DVD

Selected clips from AQ00081 and AQ00081T [This video runs 16 minutes, 26 seconds, and is copyrighted by ABC News]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Exhibit # P200337

Photo of the fireball coming from the South Tower of the World Trade Center [This photograph is copyrighted by Associated Press]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Exhibit# AQ00087DVD

Selected clips from AQ00087 and AQ00087T [This video runs 16 minutes, 50 seconds, and is copyrighted by Aljazeera Television]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

a reply to: ATH911
Not for nothing;

it's quite easier to shove a hollow pole into the earth than it is to shove a solid pole into the earth, displacement of material and whatnot.

I've never believed the story of flt. 93s scenario.

Let's gauge the wreckage in Ukrane against it, clearly, that's a plane a child could point out to his teacher?

Disintegrate, a word that has been used in recent memory seems also an application of some sorts? How high did 93 fall from?

originally posted by: ATH911
Here's an aerial photo taken on 9/12 that shows the aftermath of something exploding in the forest and causing major damage to a section of trees, including breaking off the tops of some, and also fire damage:

Let's piece together the official story to see what supposedly caused the damaged to the forest:

[Wally Miller] explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.
The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater.

UA93 Memorial Ambassador:
Parts of the cockpit broke off and went back into the woods, but the rest of it went straight down and the ground came in around it, so the actual hole wasn't very large. When the FBI went in for parts, body parts and what not, 35 to 40 feet down in the ground.

According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.
----------------------
A reporter for a Harrisburg public radio station, Lambert said Flight 93's impact hurled the plane's cockpit and first-class section onto the wooded land that has been in his family since 1930.

So Flight 93's cockpit section broke off from hitting the ground and was hurled into the woods where it exploded and disintegrated, causing severe damaged to the section of the forest adjacent to where UA93 supposedly crashed.


My question is, what's stored in a 757's cockpit to make it EXPLODE?


As mentioned in the official stories above, the remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground (see more reports saying most of UA93 buried here.).

One of the landowners even says:

The plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn," says Jim.

This means only the 757's cockpit could have caused the forest damage, but I'm unaware of anything stored in the cockpit to make it explode like a bomb and cause fire damage.


So by that, the official story conflicts with the forest damage.




(I know the story about the cockpit breaking off while the rest of the plane burrowing underground is absurd in itself -- both that most of a 757 could burrow and if most could, that the cockpit and not the tailsection would be the section that managed *not* to burrow also -- and deserves its own thread, but I'm just using the official story to question the damaged forest.)

[edit on 12-2-2010 by ATH911]

Where does it say it "exploded" and disintegrated? That looks to be just your comment.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ATH911
Here's an aerial photo taken on 9/12 that shows the aftermath of something exploding in the forest and causing major damage to a section of trees, including breaking off the tops of some, and also fire damage:

Let's piece together the official story to see what supposedly caused the damaged to the forest:

[Wally Miller] explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.
The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater.

UA93 Memorial Ambassador:
Parts of the cockpit broke off and went back into the woods, but the rest of it went straight down and the ground came in around it, so the actual hole wasn't very large. When the FBI went in for parts, body parts and what not, 35 to 40 feet down in the ground.

According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.
----------------------
A reporter for a Harrisburg public radio station, Lambert said Flight 93's impact hurled the plane's cockpit and first-class section onto the wooded land that has been in his family since 1930.

So Flight 93's cockpit section broke off from hitting the ground and was hurled into the woods where it exploded and disintegrated, causing severe damaged to the section of the forest adjacent to where UA93 supposedly crashed.


My question is, what's stored in a 757's cockpit to make it EXPLODE?


As mentioned in the official stories above, the remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground (see more reports saying most of UA93 buried here.).

One of the landowners even says:

The plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn," says Jim.

This means only the 757's cockpit could have caused the forest damage, but I'm unaware of anything stored in the cockpit to make it explode like a bomb and cause fire damage.


So by that, the official story conflicts with the forest damage.




(I know the story about the cockpit breaking off while the rest of the plane burrowing underground is absurd in itself -- both that most of a 757 could burrow and if most could, that the cockpit and not the tailsection would be the section that managed *not* to burrow also -- and deserves its own thread, but I'm just using the official story to question the damaged forest.)

[edit on 12-2-2010 by ATH911]

Where does it say it "exploded" and disintegrated? That looks to be just your comment.

The pictures are what says the remains of any plane are no more?

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ATH911
Here's an aerial photo taken on 9/12 that shows the aftermath of something exploding in the forest and causing major damage to a section of trees, including breaking off the tops of some, and also fire damage:

Let's piece together the official story to see what supposedly caused the damaged to the forest:

[Wally Miller] explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.
The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater.

UA93 Memorial Ambassador:
Parts of the cockpit broke off and went back into the woods, but the rest of it went straight down and the ground came in around it, so the actual hole wasn't very large. When the FBI went in for parts, body parts and what not, 35 to 40 feet down in the ground.

According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated.
----------------------
A reporter for a Harrisburg public radio station, Lambert said Flight 93's impact hurled the plane's cockpit and first-class section onto the wooded land that has been in his family since 1930.

So Flight 93's cockpit section broke off from hitting the ground and was hurled into the woods where it exploded and disintegrated, causing severe damaged to the section of the forest adjacent to where UA93 supposedly crashed.


My question is, what's stored in a 757's cockpit to make it EXPLODE?


As mentioned in the official stories above, the remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground (see more reports saying most of UA93 buried here.).

One of the landowners even says:

The plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn," says Jim.

This means only the 757's cockpit could have caused the forest damage, but I'm unaware of anything stored in the cockpit to make it explode like a bomb and cause fire damage.


So by that, the official story conflicts with the forest damage.




(I know the story about the cockpit breaking off while the rest of the plane burrowing underground is absurd in itself -- both that most of a 757 could burrow and if most could, that the cockpit and not the tailsection would be the section that managed *not* to burrow also -- and deserves its own thread, but I'm just using the official story to question the damaged forest.)

[edit on 12-2-2010 by ATH911]

Where does it say it "exploded" and disintegrated? That looks to be just your comment.

The pictures are what says the remains of any plane are no more?

Exploded has specific meaning in the context of the comment.

This PDF of the manual describes high pressure pure oxygen cylinders in the front of the aircraft.

ntrs.nasa.gov...
If there was an explosion, that would be a possible culprit.

Let's gauge the wreckage in Ukrane against it, clearly, that's a plane a child could point out to his teacher?

a reply to: loveguy

They really don't compare. The plane in the Ukraine was exploded at altitude by a missile. Flight 93 was intact until it slammed into the ground at high speed.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: loveguy

They really don't compare. The plane in the Ukraine was exploded at altitude by a missile. Flight 93 was intact until it slammed into the ground at high speed.

There was clear evidence (undeniable) of plane wreckage in Ukraine, there was not clear evidence (undeniable) @ the Shanksville site.

A child can point to the wreckage in Ukraine, but the same child would be dumbfounded in Shanksville.

a reply to: loveguy

So once again planes that crash in completely different manners are proof that 9/11 is BS. Because a plane hit by a missile and exploding in midair has SO much in common with one that impacted the ground intact, at a high rate of speed.

a reply to: loveguy

Repeating it over and over again doesn't change the fact that the two crashes have absolutely nothing in common .

Planes crash in different ways, which means different debris patterns and different types of wreckage. High speed impacts leave very little left.

Look at the pictures from the Air Algerie crash. High speed impact with the ground and almost nothing left.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: loveguy

Repeating it over and over again doesn't change the fact that the two crashes have absolutely nothing in common .

Planes crash in different ways, which means different debris patterns and different types of wreckage. High speed impacts leave very little left.

There is plenty in common.
Materials used in manufacturing planes, they provide evidence of wreckage when they crash. I see no evidence (of any plane) at Shanksville site, yet in the Ukraine, that is definitely a wrecked plane.

a reply to: loveguy

I'm not talking about the planes. That's absolutely irrelevant. The TYPE of crash is the key. MH17 broke apart at high altitude. That type of crash leaves lots of big pieces.

UA93 was intact when it slammed into the ground. Completely different type of crash, which leaves a completely different type of debris.

Again, go look at the pictures from Malta. That was a high speed impact with the ground and there is nothing recognizable left. And that appears to have been a relatively flat impact, not a steep angle..

a reply to: Zaphod58



twa 800

flight 93 reconstruction

a reply to: loveguy

Which, yet again, proves absolutely nothing. Not all aircraft are reconstructed after a crash. It's generally done when they can't find a cause.

And TWA 800 was another high altitude explosion.

a reply to: loveguy

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Funny, I have no problems finding pictures of wreckage easily identifiable as belonging to a United Airliners aircraft.