Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville edition

Hunt the Boeing II! Shanksville edition!

As everyone knows, on September 11, less than an hour after the attack on the Pentagon, an airplane crashed in an empty field in rural Pennsylvania. The Associated Press first reported that the plane that crashed there had first made an emergency landing at a Cleveland international airport. The news network quickly retracted the story. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing! . . . again!

Well I just played and I sure couldn't find any evidence to corroborate the official version. Sure seems to be a lot of Boeings missing from that day.

Wow, I guess I was so transfixed with the thought that it is was shot down with the 8 mile debris field evidence and all that I never stopped to notice that there is no plane there, even though I've must of seen those crash scene photos a dozen times. Is that why the shoot down rumors started so early after the attacks, to divert our attention? Mine surely was.

I mean there are no parts of the wings lying around, no tail sticking out of that hole, a 155ft plane and the hole is no deeper than the height of the investigation crew, the smoke plume looks like an ordnance plume and no thick dark smoke trailing miles in the sky from all the fuel on board catching on fire, the unburnt grass growing right up to the crater, witnesses seeing no debris or fire, coroner finding no blood, and the red bandana found that looks brand new! How did that bandana survive if the plane didn't? Where is all the blood from the hijacker who's head it was wrapped around? Maybe UA 93 did land in Cleveland after all, because it surely didn't crash in that field.

So lets see, dig a hole in the shape of a plane, drop a small fuel bomb on it, spread some light debris around in the forest and say a plane crashed there. Hey, it fooled me.

lol, funny. But yeah, also plausable. The only one I could debunk would be the smoke colour, which can change with temprature and sky colour. I think I'll leave this one to the experts to debunk.

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks The only one I could debunk would be the smoke colour, which can change with temprature and sky colour.

I don't know, that would seem too coincidental. Surely all that fuel didn't go up in one small smoke plume. You should be seeing smoke from a fuel fire trailing for miles in the sky from the crash site. I realized I've never seen any photos showing that evidence.

While you are at it why not hunt for El Al 1862, a 747-200 here:

Or the central fuselage, both wings, and 3 engines of PamAm 103, a 747-100 here:

Very interesting, when you actually compare similar circumstances.

~*~*~*~*~

What do you think is going to happen to a plane that slams into the ground at a high angle like this one did? Everything is going to compress into a very very small pile, and it's going to be buried deep in the ground. It's happened before, and if a crash of this type happens again, it will happen again.

And the debris 8 miles out?



Why don't you people give it up already?

What about it? That doesn't change the fact that the plane crashed at a steep angle and compressed into a small pile of wreckage that was buried 20+ feet down.

Originally posted by vor75
While you are at it why not hunt for El Al 1862, a 747-200 here:

Or the central fuselage, both wings, and 3 engines of PamAm 103, a 747-100 here:

Very interesting, when you actually compare similar circumstances.

Well lets see, here's a similar type of crash to UA 93 using a similar small non-closeup aerial shot as yours above and just based on this photo, you can't find the Boeing 737:



However, post a closeup photo and look, plane debris:



So I'm not sure why you posted that far away aerial photo of PanAm 103 when there are plenty of closeups that show very very large pieces of plane debris:



www.airdisaster.com...

Maybe you have some agenda and that's why you posted deceptive photos?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What do you think is going to happen to a plane that slams into the ground at a high angle like this one did? Everything is going to compress into a very very small pile, and it's going to be buried deep in the ground. It's happened before, and if a crash of this type happens again, it will happen again.

It's happened before? Could you please post the link to this? I've never seen a plane crash into the ground that didn't leave plane debris and didn't create a huge scortched area from the jet fuel catching fire.

And if the plane compressed itself into the ground and the ground covered itself back up, how do you account for the engine found a mile away, and the 8 mile debris field? How did all that debris manage to escape being buried and compressed underground?

Did the thousands of gallons of fuel get buried underground too and that's why there was no fire or dark smoke trails miles in the sky when the first witnesses arrived at the scene just minutes afterward?

Originally posted by Lumos
And the debris 8 miles out?

Why don't you people give it up already?

who was your question directed too?

Originally posted by diggsWell lets see, here's a similar type of crash to UA 93 using a similar small non-closeup aerial shot as yours above and just based on this photo, you can't find the Boeing 737:

The picture you were trying to link to is of United Airlines flight 585, which crashed while in landing configuration, and hit the ground at ~50% the velocity of Flight 93.

So I'm not sure why you posted that far away aerial photo of PanAm 103 when there are plenty of closeups that show very very large pieces of plane debris

.

As I said: central fuselage, both wings, and 3 engines. This part of the aircraft went straight into the ground at ~400 knots. The nose section separated at cruise altitude and touched down under quite different circumstances (there is no fuel in the nose section, for starters) and in a different area.

Read up on it, genius.

Originally posted by vor75
The picture you were trying to link to is of United Airlines flight 585, which crashed while in landing configuration, and hit the ground at ~50% the velocity of Flight 93.

The aircraft then suddenly rolled to the right and started to pitch nose down. The crew tried to initiate a go-around by selecting 15-deg. flaps and an increase in thrust. The altitude decreased rapidly, acceleration increased to over 4G until the aircraft struck the ground of Widefield Park almost vertically.
aviation-safety.net...

Sounds like it crashed very similar to me.

As I said: central fuselage, both wings, and 3 engines. This part of the aircraft went straight into the ground at ~400 knots. The nose section separated at cruise altitude and touched down under quite different circumstances (there is no fuel in the nose section, for starters) and in a different area.

Engine:



Central fuselage:

Read up on it, genius.

Oh that comment wasn't immature.

I've read several reports by the NTSB, and by military crash teams where a plane went straight into the ground. The FIRST THING the investigators asked was "Where's the plane?" The best one was an A-6 that went straight in. The engine was compressed to less than three feet long and the main wreckage was found 10-15 feet underground.

Oh wait, it must not be true because it's not on the net and there aren't pictures of the crash scenes.

Originally posted by diggs
Sounds like it crashed very similar to me.

Except that it was going half the speed, I notice you leave that out.

The first officer said, "Oh, God," - the altitude decreased rapidly; the indicated airspeed increased to over 200 knots; and the normal acceleration increased to over 4g.

The central part of PanAm 103 went into the crater I posted a picture of - almost nothing was left of it. I posted that example because it was a similar scenario.

You are posting pictures of the nose section and #3 engine, which as I said landed elsewhere and didn't have fuel tanks attached to them.

You can see this is the forward part of the 747 becasue there are 2 stories:

Why are you posting misleading pictures?

Added:

As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first in Sherwood Crescent, where the aviation fuel inside the wings ignited, causing a fireball that destroyed several houses, and which was so intense that nothing remained of the left wing of the aircraft. Investigators were able to determine that both wings had landed in the crater only after counting the number of large, steel flapjack screws that were found there

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-5-2006 by vor75]

Even one of 310th RAF Squadron's (Czechoslovakian) Spitfires was able to dig several meters into the ground and was found years later. And I suspect the speed had to be rather lower compared to a 757 hitting ground in a steep dive.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by tuccy]

Surely, there must be sattelite images of this area on 9/11. There seemed to be a few "after the fact" images of the Pentagon and WTC that day.

In fact, for all the events on that day, there should be (I may be wrong, I don't know how often images are taken) sattelite images to debunk, bunk, prove, disprove, whater went on that day.

The ground was also a former strip mine, thus I would suspect that it was a little less consolidated than if it were undisturbed soil. (i.e. looser)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've read several reports by the NTSB, and by military crash teams where a plane went straight into the ground. The FIRST THING the investigators asked was "Where's the plane?" The best one was an A-6 that went straight in. The engine was compressed to less than three feet long and the main wreckage was found 10-15 feet underground.

Oh wait, it must not be true because it's not on the net and there aren't pictures of the crash scenes.

An A-6 is 100 ft shorter in length than a 757. Not the best comparison. And until I see some good photos of the scene, I can only take your word and I don't really trust anybody's word.

I tell you what, why don't you answer all the question in that challenge. I'm curious of your answers.

Originally posted by vor75
Why are you posting misleading pictures?

I don't know much about the Pan Am crash, but from what I just read, it sounds like an apples and oranges crash. Your first pic of the Amsterdam crash is really apples and oranges. That one's like the Pentagon crash if anything. Not sure why you included in this thread.

Tell you what, since we are not on the same page, why don't you take that challenge I posted and answer the questions. Then I'll have a better idea of how you think of the crash.

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Surely, there must be sattelite images of this area on 9/11. There seemed to be a few "after the fact" images of the Pentagon and WTC that day.

Here's an image gallery of the Shanks crash. They have a few aerial photos.