Skeptic's dilemma regarding alleged UA93 wreckage

Flight 93 was shot down. Thats why there were two other debris fields that were never shown on or in the national media because of the control factor...no photos or video then its easier to control. Simple logic there. The Shanksville site was shown to the media because it was decended on so quickly by rescuers, local media and others that because the site contained very little evidence, there the theory of the plane buried itself was created.

Timothy Stone, the US government's prosecutor, as having asked the alleged terrorism conspirator about the destination of United Airlines Flight 93 - the only "9-11" hijacked airliner that did not reach its intended target. "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, according to ABC, Reuters, and others.

Kovach

The national media was misled by officials who knew that it had been shot down because if many of you recall most national as well as local media news outlets were reporting "the site where most of the debris is located is just too difficult to access..."

They were talking about the actual two other debris sites because the Shanksville site has roads leading to it making it very easy to get to. This should ring bells with those of you who remember this but for some, its too easy to promote "no plane" theories based on a clear misunderstanding and little knowledge of what really happened to the flight.

This also gave birth to the "no plane" theory but understandably so because the site as I stated earlier, shows nothing but a little bit of wreckage. Perfectly consistant with a shoot down. The well known photo of the window panel shows it as having been burned but the grass underneath it isn't. Thats because it fell out of the sky while burining and, no one really is clear on where that panel photo was taken. Many only assume it was Shanksville but I have my doubts. If the photos of the other two sites were made avalible then many of you would understand really clear, why I say it was shot down.

Its easy for many to make the claim that there is no plane in Shanksville because its partly the truth...there just isn't MUCH of a plane there is more accurate. Again, two other debris sites made public could end this debate regarding what really happened to flight 93.




[edit on 3/15/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


If it were shot down it didnt crash in that small crater in Shanksville that is a fact. As shown before may times, the crater in Shanksville is much to small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

The crater is too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757. No evidence of a shootdown or compromised plane in the crater. Fact.

Debunkers sometimes pose a truthers and attempt to muddy forums, keep an eye out.

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

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Yes I do...keep an eye out that is.

However while I agree the "hole" in Shanksville is too small as I posted, its not the actual crash site and as far as I'm concerned regarding the hole in Shanksville it could anything...who knows.

The other two debris fields contained evidence of the shoot down and are currently being stored at Iron Mountain facility.

reply to post by mikelee


One need not try to sell the idea of a shootdown. All that has to be proven is that a Boeing 757 did not cause the little crater in Shanksville which has been proven over and over again.

The fact is that using common sense and some physics, there is an insufficient amount of dirt displaced. Considering the speed which it flight 93 is claimed to have gone into the ground, the crater proves the impossibility of such an idiotic assertion.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

One need not try to sell the idea of a shootdown. All that has to be proven is that a Boeing 757 did not cause the little crater in Shanksville which has been proven over and over again.

No one is selling anything here. Flight 93 was shot down. Plain & simple. The "no plane" theory is based in the assumption that the flight itself along with the people who died during the incident never existed at all to begin with. That theory in and of itself is not only without any proof what-so-ever but borders on questioning the very motives and integrity of anyone who promotes and supports such a demeaning theory. If for no other reason, then the fact that it discounts the very lives of the people who died along with their very existence totally.

The "no plane" theory is just a means to propagate a theory for the sake of propagating a theory. In order for this theory to be accurate at least in some validity there would have to be proof that none of the passengers ever existed at all prior to the flight, the aircraft itself never existed before the flight, those who fueled it never existed, those who worked on it never existed etc etc. In addition the witnesses in PA who saw it never existed then either so there goes more than half of the other conspiracy websites theory's as well. Plus there is no evidence to support the "no plane" theory from any stance other than simply saying it.

The "no plane" theory in my opinion is equal to saying that a fish jumped in the water then trying to actually prove where it left the mark in the water, how high it was in the air then trying to prove what fish actually jumped.

spelling

[edit on 3/16/2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by mikelee

The fact is that using common sense and some physics, there is an insufficient amount of dirt displaced. Considering the speed which it flight 93 is claimed to have gone into the ground, the crater proves the impossibility of such an idiotic assertion.

So where is this "physics"? Where is the math that proves this statement? If it is so obvious then it should be so easy to demonstrate. Yet all you present is you own incredulity and pronounce everything "proven".

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I think we can all agree that flight 93 didn't entirely contact the ground at that debris spot. It makes sense that if the plane broke into pieces, either from structural failure (from pilot error (a terrorist over stressing the fuselage) or a missile impact, which would cause irreversible damage), various pieces would be scattered over a determined radius. It would be interesting to measure how far apart debris fields are, that way we can guesstimate the distance the pieces fell, and the altitude the initial seperation occured (consistent with a missile strike, where the plane would seperate almost instantly at cruising altitude; this theory won't work with pilot error, where the plane might snap anywhere between 38000ft and the ground).
I agree that a 757 would not make the small crater seen in above photos, however it is entirely possible that PART of the plane could make the small crater shown.

Originally posted by PatrickJ

I agree that a 757 would not make the small crater seen in above photos, however it is entirely possible that PART of the plane could make the small crater shown.

You are not alone. Not many people believe that a plane crashed in Shanksville when shown the evidence provided.

As for the crater being caused by part of the plane, i would say if that is the case, maybe an engine or a very small part created the 6-8 foot deep crater but obviously and undoubtedly was not caused by a Boeing 757 as the official conspiracy theory claims.

reply to post by ATH911




As you can see in the picture above how small the crater is relative to a the dimension of a Boeing 757. Where the man is standing is where the tail fin and fuselage would of hit which is obvious that nothing hit the ground where he stands.

Here is an image of a Boeing 757, notice how large it is.


Here is that small 6-8 foot deep crater the is claimed to have been caused by a Boeing 757 which is obvious it wasnt.

Eyewitnesses claim that what crashed was no bigger than a mini-van.

I have provided images of a real plane crash.

This plane crashed in similar type of terrain as the Shanksville site.



and now the errr. Flight 93 crash site...


Obvious to anyone who sees it. The crater in Shanskville was not caused by a Boeing 757 crashing there inverted at 45 degree angle at over 500 mph.

So because my opinion does not jive with yours you resort to sending me negative U2U's?

Its been reported...And I'm telling you now to never send me another U2U ever again.



[edit on 3/16/2010 by mikelee]

As you can see by these next images. I have marked the area that was disturbed on 9/11. Very small and too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.



Considering the thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the 124 foot wingspan let alone the 15+ foot diameter of the fuselage at the cabin and the massive tail section, no evidence of any of these factors coming into contact with the ground. No fire, inches away from the elliptical crater which is measured as being under 10ft deep.











[edit on 16-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Just to clarify, the Iran crash involved a Tupolev TU-154, an aircraft very similiar in size and weight to the Boeing 757.

Does anyone have any photos of the secondary impact sites of flight 93?

yeah I am pretty sure there are pics out there of similar planes hitting the ground at similar speeds. What does the wreckage of those accidents look like?

reply to post by PatrickJ



As far as I have gotten in my own search for photos of the other two debris sites, I have been told by people I trust explicitly they do exist but are either stored at Iron Mountain or elsewhere.

reply to post by mikelee


So, to be clear, is this the reason (and I assume you cannot disclose sources?) that you believe in the "shoot-down" hypothesis, irrespective of the FDR data that refutes a "shoot-down" event?


Because, being able to access those other photos (if they exist) will surely lead to a far better understanding of the entire scenario, and not limit everyone to the few that are being (repeatedly, ad infinitum) presented in the 9/11 Forum. The very few that are available literally do NOT show the whole picture!


As far as the UAL 93 wreckage, all this thread has done so far is offer supposition and innuendo, based on opinion. With a large dose of misinformation (most likely acquired innocently from other sources, and believed, even when facts on record refute it).

reply to post by weedwhacker

So, to be clear, is this the reason (and I assume you cannot disclose sources?) that you believe in the "shoot-down" hypothesis, irrespective of the FDR data that refutes a "shoot-down" event?

For now I'm just giving my opinion as to what I believe happened with the flight. For now anyway....

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
As you can see by these next images. I have marked the area that was disturbed on 9/11. Very small and too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

Just curious, exactly how did you determine that the area highlighted in the photo was the limit of disturbance?

Looks like the actual affected area may be much larger.













[edit on 16-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

One need not try to sell the idea of a shootdown. All that has to be proven is that a Boeing 757 did not cause the little crater in Shanksville which has been proven over and over again.

No one is selling anything here. ........The "no plane" theory is based in the assumption that the flight itself along with the people who died during the incident never existed at all to begin with.


spelling

[edit on 3/16/2010 by mikelee]

There is no assumption theory as to what caused the crater except for what you have been told on the news or by Rumsfeld, but there are facts that prove what didnt. There is no theory that says that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 did not exist or its passengers. That is not the point, the point that was proven some time ago is the crater is much too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

A fully fueled Boeing 757 coming down at a 45+ degree angle and at over 500mph inverted, with a wingspan of over 123 feet would not leave a 6- 10 feet deep elliptical crater with a radius of less then 20-30 feet. Some estimates were 10 feet by 10 feet deep.

In reality the crater would of been quite large considering the terrain. The engines, wings and fuel would of trenched themselves ensued by a massive fire which none of the above were evident.