Rare Footage of Flight 93

I just came across this video of some rare news footage of flight 93. I think I have seen the second part of the clip, but not the first!!! Sorry that I only posted the link, I'm still learning how to inbed the video correctly.

LINK

I have seen the photo of the "engine" next to a plow in another thread, but besides that photo, I haven't seen anything that resembles a plane or anything that would go along with plane debris. Why did the reporter state that it was scattered over several miles? Where is the cabin, engine, or any other significant piece of the aircraft!!! I don't think that the plane vaporized, or the ground just opened up and swallowed the whole thing.

This has always been the biggest smoking gun, but gets so little attention.

Originally posted by acmeartifacts
This has always been the biggest smoking gun, but gets so little attention.

agreed, either the aircraft never existed or it was shot down in mid air.... either way it doesnt correlate with the official story.

Well I hope this is enough proof that Flight 93 didn't crash.

killtown.911review.org...


Check toward the bottom left where it says Initial Reports.

So my question what happened to flight 93

How was there a debris field at all if the whole "Let's Roll" scenario is true at all?

I'm normally very skeptical about all this conspiracy stuff but that is very strange stuff - even Lockerbie had significant lumps of plane lying around but there there's nothing. also the hole being 20-30' x 10' doesn't sound big enough.

Anyone have any other instances where a plane has crashed & left no evidence?

me too i normally don't get into the 9/11 conspiracies but this...how is this possible...unless the plane hit the ground at almost the speed of sound o dont see how it can be possible that there is no bigger debris than a phone book.
even then if it hit the ground at the speed of sound there should still be stuff bigger than a phone book.

This might help - Footage of 1988 rocket-sled test - www.sandia.gov...

There are a few problems with that comparison.

* The F-4 hit head-on. Flight 93 did not, meaning not all the energy was transferred immediately into the ground.

* The F-4 hit a solid object designed not to go anywhere. The ground at the alleged Flight 93 crash site was soft (much softer) than that concrete block, relatively.

@The OP: That is a great find.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Fair enough, it was just something to throw into the mix.