Wonder why there were two United 93 crash sites?

Here’s Bill Crowley from the FBI explaining….





Any Questions?

reply to post by maxella1


There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes true, the thing is why were there multiple debris fields scattered 6 miles apart, that must mean the plane started breaking up before it went down.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes you are correct, there were two debris sites.

The FBI explained it very well, I also hope it stops this type of questioning

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes true, the thing is why were there multiple debris fields scattered 6 miles apart, that must mean the plane started breaking up before it went down.

I believe it was shot down.

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes true, the thing is why were there multiple debris fields scattered 6 miles apart, that must mean the plane started breaking up before it went down.

The idea that the plane broke up before crashing is not borne out by the recovered flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder nor witnesses.

Why couldn't " very light material such as paper " travel on the wind as the NTSB said was probable ?

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes true, the thing is why were there multiple debris fields scattered 6 miles apart, that must mean the plane started breaking up before it went down.

I believe it was shot down.

No ! A shot down would be too logical..
Didn't you hear It was the wind? FBI said so.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes true, the thing is why were there multiple debris fields scattered 6 miles apart, that must mean the plane started breaking up before it went down.

The idea that the plane broke up before crashing is not borne out by the recovered flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder nor witnesses.

Why couldn't " very light material such as paper " travel on the wind as the NTSB said was probable ?

Exactly!!
When I find paper with peoples addresses on it, I immediately call the authorities. Because it might have come from a crime scene miles away.

No cover up here.

If the plane was shot down doesn't that make an inside job even more unlikely? Why would the conspirators shoot down their own plane?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If the plane was shot down doesn't that make an inside job even more unlikely? Why would the conspirators shoot down their own plane?

Inside job would be a conspiracy...
Conspiracy theorist are prone to faulty thinking and having unnatural desire to be marginalized by critical thinkers who know better than to look at the evidence.

Originally posted by maxella1

Exactly!!
When I find paper with peoples addresses on it, I immediately call the authorities. Because it might have come from a crime scene miles away.

No cover up here.

That is simply your bias and personal incredulity speaking. You haven't actually addressed why light debris cannot travel on the wind several miles.

This aircrash has various similarities to UA 93 and at 8.50 there is reference to debris from that crash "7 to 8 miles away ". Another "inside job" ?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Alfie1

That is simply your bias and personal incredulity speaking. You haven't actually addressed why light debris cannot travel on the wind several miles

I never said that light debris cannot travel on the wind several miles.
And yes I personally do not believe their explanation.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

That is simply your bias and personal incredulity speaking. You haven't actually addressed why light debris cannot travel on the wind several miles

I never said that light debris cannot travel on the wind several miles.
And yes I personally do not believe their explanation.

Why? Is it possibly because you want others to think there was a complex conspiracy contrived by evil forces and as resourceful and cunning and clever as they may be they are no match for your keen intellect?

If the "light" debris traveled 6+ miles than how come there were only 2 other sites. Why wasn't there debris scattered on a trail for 6 miles, seems like it was placed there and not carried by wind.

Im basing this on the debris did not fall off the plane during flight but how on impact with the ground the wind picked it up and carried it to the spots.

Why? Is it possibly because you want others to think there was a complex conspiracy contrived by evil forces and as resourceful and cunning and clever as they may be they are no match for your keen intellect?

reply to post by hooper


No actually it's a lot simpler..

THEY ARE LIERS. That's all.

And I don't care what others think.

Originally posted by scottromansky
If the "light" debris traveled 6+ miles than how come there were only 2 other sites. Why wasn't there debris scattered on a trail for 6 miles, seems like it was placed there and not carried by wind.

Im basing this on the debris did not fall off the plane during flight but how on impact with the ground the wind picked it up and carried it to the spots.

Hi Scott... here is a map that outlines where debris was found.

reply to post by maxella1

No actually it's a lot simpler..

Actually, wanting others to think you're more than you really are is quite simple. And pretty ordinary.

THEY ARE LIERS. That's all.

All of them? And don't forget, they are all now mass murderers. Yeah, thats believable.

And I don't care what others think.

Sure you do, why else would you post your thoughts on a public forum on the internet?

Originally posted by nooper


Why? Is it possibly because you want others to think there was a complex conspiracy contrived by evil forces and as resourceful and cunning and clever as they may be they are no match for your keen intellect?

Originally posted by maxella1
No actually it's a lot simpler..

THEY ARE LIERS. That's all.

And I don't care what others think.

Game - Set - Match.

No answer... call them a liar!..

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by scottromansky
If the "light" debris traveled 6+ miles than how come there were only 2 other sites. Why wasn't there debris scattered on a trail for 6 miles, seems like it was placed there and not carried by wind.

Im basing this on the debris did not fall off the plane during flight but how on impact with the ground the wind picked it up and carried it to the spots.

Hi Scott... here is a map that outlines where debris was found.

thanks for clarifying for me, star for you.

reply to post by hooper

Actually, wanting others to think you're more than you really are is quite simple. And pretty ordinary.

Oh Hooper, this statement describes you a lot better than me.

All of them? And don't forget, they are all now mass murderers. Yeah, thats believable.

I call them liars, you call them murderers.

Sure you do, why else would you post your thoughts on a public forum on the internet?

Because it's fun, isn't it?