Skeptic's dilemma regarding alleged UA93 wreckage

The FBI claims that they recovered almost all of Flight 93.

SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

Photos of the scene taken before the clean-up started show relatively little debris lying around.




A year after 9/11, the media start reporting that most UA93 penetrated underground and this would logically explain why not much 757 debris was observed above ground.


However, skeptics have put themselves in quite a dilemma.


First off, skeptics seem split in regards to how much of UA93 was buried underground, or not. Some believe most was buried, while others don't. This is an obvious problem for skeptics because they can't have it both ways.


For the skeptics who don't believe most of the 757 was buried, they've never been able to show where most of the claimed 95% of wreckage was above ground before cleanup.

An FBI aerial photograph taken Sept. 12, 2001, shows the crash site of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pa.

For the skeptics who do believe that most of the plane had buried as the media and others report, they've never been able to prove that most of a large 757 was dug out of the ground.



They've also never been able to rationally explain why it took almost a year before the media started reporting that most of UA93 had buried, an unprecedented feat for a large airplane that should have made front page news soon after investigators realized that most of UA93 had supposedly buried, especially when it would have been logically assumed that if most of the plane had buried, then most of the passenger remains would most likely be buried along with it too, especially since no bodies or blood was observed above ground.


So skeptics, you can see your dilemma.


First, you need to come to some consensus as to how much of UA93 was allegedly buried.

If your consensus is most of the plane had buried -- an extraordinary feat for a 757 to do -- then you have to show extraordinary evidence to prove most of the 757 had buried -- so far you haven't.

If your consensus is most of the plane did not bury, then you have to show where all that above ground wreckage was that comes close to adding up to an astounding claimed 95% recovered of a 757.
You also have to rationally explain why your consensus is radically different than the media reporting most had buried.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by ATH911]

I would think most US Goverment " Drone Missles " like the one that landed in Shanksville , upon detonation , wouldn't leave much Wreckage ......... The Case is still open on weither or not a 757 crashed there IMO .



Shanksville Witness ...


" Susan was on the opposite end of Viola. She was driving north that morning on Bridge St. in Stoystown less than a mile southwest of the crash site. First lets talk about what Susan did not see on her side of the crash site : a 757. Allegedly while Susan is approaching the stop sign and her experience takes place a 757 is diving towards the ground less than a mile in front of her. Susan did not see one because it was already gone.

As for where it went that we’ll get into later.

Suddenly a small white plane passes right over Susan’s vehicle flying so low to the ground it has to pull up in order to avoid crashing into the row of trees at the Bridge St & Buckstown Rd intersection. It is so low in fact that Susan’s first thoughts were “Oh my God, he’s gonna crash, he’s gonna crash”. The plane vanished behind the treeline and seconds later a smoke cloud began to rise. "


[edit on 14-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

You know, I'm not the well versed with the whole flight 93 crash scene information. I'm sure, like most other people, I have a hard time following along with the directions of where f93 was coming from (in relation to aerial photos of the crash scene, like the excavated one that was just posted above) also in relation to which direction the white aircraft Susan reports was flying in relation to the crash sight and f93.

I think something like this would help put things into perspective for a lot of people(me).

reply to post by ATH911


What these supporters of the impossible official story ignore concerning the crater is that it is impossible to have been caused by something anywhere near the size of a Boeing 757.


Where the man is standing in the picture is where the top half of the fuselage and or cockpit should of hit then the tail fin or vert. stabilizer which is 44 feet tall and there is no evidence of that.

Considering the sheer size, weight, and velocity, there was no where near the sufficient amount of dirt displacement, cratering, or crater rim radius.

What caused the crater was not a Boeing 757. There are no wing impact marks. What is confused for wing impacts are trenches that were there much before September 11th.

The hole is much to small. There is a lack of dirt displacement, no wings hit the ground any where the span of 124 feet as the B757. and the crater rim is only about 10-15 feet with a depth of only 6-10 feet. A physics impossibility.

in these next images, if you were to subtract the pre-existing trench which is often confused being caused by wings which has been proven to be not caused by wings of a boeing 757, then all you have is a elliptical crater with a radius of under 16 feet and depth of only 6-10 feet.




This vantage point was taken from inside one the 'wing scars' which as you can see is a weathered trench that was obviously present long before the crater was caused.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.

reply to post by ATH911


Besides this planted alleged piece of a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 turbofan engine, there appears to be no other aircraft debris anywhere in sight, in this mine strip pit which allegedly swallowed a 100 ton 757 aircraft.

High rez image from the Zacherias Moussaoui Show Trial

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/789ad1c93c85.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ATH911


What if the official consensus of the "skeptics' is that some percentage of the plane was embedded at the impact zone, some was dispersed by the blast and force of the impact, there were no "bodies" above or below ground because the human body is not capable of surviving intact the force of a blast caused by the rapid explosion of thousands of gallons of fuel and the tremendous force of the imapct?

That the skeptics all agree that whether the ratio of the embedded materials is described as "most" or alot or a great deal or 80% or 50% or 61.879% is wholly irrelevant?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Where the man is standing in the picture is where the top half of the fuselage and or cockpit should of hit then the tail fin or vert. stabilizer which is 44 feet tall and there is no evidence of that.

Considering the sheer size, weight, and velocity, there was no where near the sufficient amount of dirt displacement, cratering, or crater rim radius.

What caused the crater was not a Boeing 757. There are no wing impact marks. What is confused for wing impacts are trenches that were there much before September 11th.

The hole is much to small. There is a lack of dirt displacement, no wings hit the ground any where the span of 124 feet as the B757. and the crater rim is only about 10-15 feet with a depth of only 6-10 feet. A physics impossibility.

Original high rez Zacherias Moussaoui Show Trial image

Indeed. Here is an enlarged crop from the original photo with the man standing next to the little hole in the strip mine. It is ridiculous to push the fairy tale that a 100 ton 124 foot wingspan aircraft disappeared into that teensey little hole.

Where is the 100 tons or so of displaced dirt? How did the hole fill back in over the aircraft? Is this a set for a Wile E. Coyote cartoon?

Hilarious.

Larger image

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1658313cec9e.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
You know, I'm not the well versed with the whole flight 93 crash scene information.

Don't feel bad. Officials never really produce details about the crash scene. We've mostly had to piece things together from news articles.

I have a hard time following along with the directions of where f93 was coming from (in relation to aerial photos of the crash scene, like the excavated one that was just posted above) also in relation to which direction the white aircraft Susan reports was flying in relation to the crash sight and f93.

In the excavated pic above, the alleged plane came in from the bottom middle which is north in that pic.

Susan's white wing-less UAV aircraft came in from the opposite side.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
You know, I'm not the well versed with the whole flight 93 crash scene information.

Don't feel bad. Officials never really produce details about the crash scene. We've mostly had to piece things together from news articles.

I have a hard time following along with the directions of where f93 was coming from (in relation to aerial photos of the crash scene, like the excavated one that was just posted above) also in relation to which direction the white aircraft Susan reports was flying in relation to the crash sight and f93.

In the excavated pic above, the alleged plane came in from the bottom middle which is north in that pic.

Susan's white wing-less UAV aircraft came in from the opposite side.

This is supposed to be the official flight path coming in from the north in line with the alleged crash site and the alleged engine found in the lake. Of course there is a problem with the secondary debris piles 2 and 8 miles to the southeast, and another problem with several eyewitnesses spotting the aircraft over Indian Lake, and still another problem with air traffic controllers reporting the aircraft still in the air a minute after the alleged crash.

But what the heck; this is the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY and full of hundreds of problems.

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

Originally posted by SPreston
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by PersonalChoice

This is supposed to be the official flight path coming in from the north in line with the alleged crash site and the alleged engine found in the lake. Of course there is a problem with the secondary debris piles 2 and 8 miles to the southeast....

When did they become piles?

and another problem with several eyewitnesses spotting the aircraft over Indian Lake....

Spotting or hearing?

and still another problem with air traffic controllers reporting the aircraft still in the air a minute after the alleged crash.

Explain all the sources for this alleged problem.

reply to post by SPreston

Of course there is a problem with the secondary debris piles 2 and 8 miles to the southeast, and another problem with several eyewitnesses spotting the aircraft over Indian Lake, and still another problem with air traffic controllers reporting the aircraft still in the air a minute after the alleged crash.

Hello SPreston.

Actually, there are no porblems as stated. I (and many others) have explained the first part, and I have explained the last.

Eyewitness testimony is inconsistent, and unverifiable.

There is far more substantitive data to support the facts than there are to support 'conspiracy'.

I'm happy to repeat what I know.

Originally posted by ATH911
First, you need to come to some consensus as to how much of UA93 was allegedly buried.

If your consensus is most of the plane had buried -- an extraordinary feat for a 757 to do -- then you have to show extraordinary evidence to prove most of the 757 had buried -- so far you haven't.

If your consensus is most of the plane did not bury, then you have to show where all that above ground wreckage was that comes close to adding up to an astounding claimed 95% recovered of a 757.
You also have to rationally explain why your consensus is radically different than the media reporting most had buried.

bump for skeptics

we need an answer.

reply to post by SPreston


" What caused the crater was not a Boeing 757. There are no wing impact marks. What is confused for wing impacts are trenches that were there much before September 11th.

The hole is much to small. There is a lack of dirt displacement, no wings hit the ground any where the span of 124 feet as the B757. and the crater rim is only about 10-15 feet with a depth of only 6-10 feet. A physics impossibility. "


What you are describing here is almost the same circumstances as the " Alledged " 757 that Crashed into the Pentagon . Neither Crash Sites IMO show any Conclusive Evidence of a 757 Impact on those Areas .

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, you are making a problem where there isnt.

The secondary debris field consisted of LIGHT MATERIALS:
shreds of clothes, cloths, paper, insulation, nylon webbing, shredded magazines, mail, basically anything that can be sucked up into a fireball and deposited downwind.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston

 

SPreston, you are making a problem where there isnt.

The secondary debris field consisted of LIGHT MATERIALS:
shreds of clothes, cloths, paper, insulation, nylon webbing, shredded magazines, mail, basically anything that can be sucked up into a fireball and deposited downwind.

Wow, you just make these things as you go along.

The second debris field? Post sources as to what they found there, some images etc....

As for the crater, like it has been proven before... It is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. This is painfully obvious.

What ever caused the crater was extremely small compared to a Boeing 757 and did not have wings anywhere near the wingspan of a Boeing 757.

Nice try tho.

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Where is the 100 tons or so of displaced dirt? How did the hole fill back in over the aircraft? Is this a set for a Wile E. Coyote cartoon?

Hilarious.

Larger image

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1658313cec9e.jpg[/atsimg]

Very good point and quite simple to understand. There is insufficient dirt displacement to coincide with a Boeing 757 crash.

If you showed me that image and said it was caused by a bomb or missile I would not argue with you. If you said that it was caused just by a jet engine plummeting to the ground, I would say, probably but to say a fully fueled commercial airliner with a wingspan of over 123 feet I would say........ Ignorant Liar, uneducated con.


Also...... Where the man is standing is where the fuselage is claimed to have crashed not to mention the vertical stabilizer and there is no evidence of that what so ever.














[edit on 15-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]