supposed "rare" united 93 footage.

Originally posted by apex
I didn't know about that one, thanks.

I had thought that were an engine to come off, it was pretty much guaranteed loss of aircraft. Did they know the engines had come off, and as such know how to make corrections for the centre of gravity? Sounds like they were lucky.

After they got control they sent the boomer back to the boom pod to check for damage. He called the Aircraft Commander and said "We lost two engines." The AC, assuming he meant they had been damaged said something to the effect of "Are they on fire?" The boomer came back with something like "No sir. They're GONE." The AC and copilot fought that bird for a couple of hours. They gave the crew the option of jumping but said they were gonna try for a base, and the crew elected to stay with them.

They were lucky, and they had a damn good crew. They made the best landing of the pilots career that day.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


It's been covered a ton but not by me. I think the vids just show again what we already know - the plane disappeared. To solve this riddle, I'd guess keep the 757 idea in mind before discarding it, analyze the type of ground hit (infilled strip mine - like a giant sandbox), the angle of impact, the tree damage and fires, etc. It fits with a rather odd plane crash, which I guess it was.

I'm not saying there was no plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

BUT...

The characterization of the land where the plane crash has been distorted to support the disapprearing plane-in-the-dirt explanation. The land where the plane crashed was back-filled over 10 years before the crash with dirt, not sand. The machinery used to excavate the crater, and the corresponding photos shows pretty solid earth.

As far as it being an odd plane crash, it may be odd, but it wasn't unique. There were at least two other crashes, one in Denver, and one outside of Pittsbuegh (FL 427 I think?) that had a commercial jet nose-dive straight into the ground at full speed due to rudder problems. Photos of both these sites, and especially the craters, show large pieces of debris adjacent to the crater.

This site is totally unlike the Pentagon site. There was NO debris or burn marks surrounding the crater. None. Zero. There was a smoldering crater, and 6 inches beside the crater it didn't even look as if anything happened. The official story is that the plane totally buried itself, yet there were entirely intact items "found" in the woods, like a bible and a terrorist's red bandana.

There was also debris found 8 miles away in New Baltimore, as well as 2 miles away at Indian Lake, which seems odd for a plane that completely buried itself in the dirt. I don't recall reports of debris from the Pentagon crash being found 8 miles away, but I could have just missed those reports.

Again, this is not to say there was no plane. But I personally think of the 4 crashes this is the one crash where the physical evidence least matches the official story. This is also the crash with by far the fewest eye-witnesses. This is also the flight where the controllers were ordered out of three different control towers, and it's the Flight that the Mayor of Cleveland said had landed at the Cleveland airport.


And as we know, this is the crash whose passengers were said to launch the first counter-attack in the War on Terror.

United 93 might have been a great movie (I wouldn't know, not having watched it) but it's no more then a piece of realistic fiction! How the public can so easily buy into this "Let's Roll" bravery BS is typical over-inflated, misguided American patriotism at its best. Does anyone else feel sick whenever a movie is made, a reflective ceremony is examined, or any kind of reference is made to this "9/11 society" we now live in? I thought the terrorists wouldn't change our way of life, HA. One more piece of *snip* lie that sounded good when it was first said, but of course would never be followed through with.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

The ground at both of those 737 crashes was mountainous terrain. Much harder than and Shanksville.

As for the debris 8 miles away according to reports it was all paper and insulation. The light weight materials that you would expect to find miles away from a big crash like this.

This here is the altitude time graph of United 93, showing up to where it hit the ground.

link

It shows that it went through several maneuvers just prior to the crash, these could account for an engine coming off, if the maneuvers were strong enough.

As for debris, it was reported that there was a fireball on impact, as would be expected, and light debris could easily be picked up by that and spread in the wind.

Ha ha,

It's funny when you hear the news women talk about the crashed plane but when the camera pans over the crash sight you see no plane and that's when you can tell in her voice that she knows she is reporting lies.

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
United 93 might have been a great movie (I wouldn't know, not having watched it) but it's no more then a piece of realistic fiction! How the public can so easily buy into this "Let's Roll" bravery BS is typical over-inflated, misguided American patriotism at its best. Does anyone else feel sick whenever a movie is made, a reflective ceremony is examined, or any kind of reference is made to this "9/11 society" we now live in? I thought the terrorists wouldn't change our way of life, HA. One more piece of *snip* lie that sounded good when it was first said, but of course would never be followed through with.

i agree it made me sick when they made those movies, capitolizing off of a tragedy of lies and dis information



[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 27-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I can't believe just one thing: that all of you are "discussing" something so obvious: There is no plane, no crash. Nothing to talk about. It was all a lie. Just like many, many other lies.

I mean, you make me feel like the human race is endlesly stupid, and you can lie to them whatever you want, as long as official tv confirms it.

Originally posted by XxHeartOfAnArtistxX
i agree it made me sick when they made those movies, capitolizing off of a tragedy of lies and dis information

The majority of people feel that there was no conspiracy to 9/11, and feel that the events shown in United 93 are accurate. If you feel it is a portrayal of what happened on that day, it is a very effective portrayal of those events. And as AFAIK, all but one of the families of those on United 93 supported the making of that film, so i personally feel that it should have been made. The other film though, I don't feel that way about.

Now, as far as it is known, I can't really see why it is thought that anything other than a 757 hit that field. While I mentioned explosive type weaponry on my earlier post, it is possible to happen with the use of impact and fuel explosion alone.

im glad to see this has gotten some eye.
i think the best thing to do is to see if the ever did find any bigger peices.
i mean if it did nose dive the wings should have been there i would imagine unless they were torn apart from the velocity on the way down,
If so there should be some big pieces some where because after they got torn off they must have fell at a slower speed,
and if the wing's were still in tact why dont we see and burnt metal or anything, I think most people can agree This video makes a ton of evidene as towards this mysterious crash, but i think with this video alone and maybe a little bit more research as towards debree, maybe we can come to a better conclusion.

Originally posted by defcon5
Yeah, us airlines folks don’t know much about aircraft after all, do we?
I’m wrong, there I have been told.

The 757 has nothing of consequence in the tail, and its empty airfoil with no serious reinforcement. The wing-spars are most likely in the ground, just cause they did not see them when they arrived, does not mean they were not buried there. BTW 15x20 is not tiny when you consider that the fuselage is only like 13 feet in diameter on the exterior.

i asked my brother about it. he's doing engineering, now. specifically i asked how cartoon cutout are possible at the towers.
he pointed out that the wing spars are the strongest part of the airframe. (with engines being obviously more massive).

nice try. the wingspan is 180 ft, or something. there HAS TO BE SOME EVIDENCE that wings ploughed up the ground, or, if it landed straight down(highly unlikely).

youtube is wonderful, folks. go and look at plane crash tests, or photos of downed jumbos, and find ONE jumbo jet that simply evaporated leaving a 15 X 20 ft. hole.

so, did the wings fold forward into the hole, or did they fold backwards into that hole?

where are the engines?

how did the 'nothing of consequence' tail spar make a cartoon cutout at the WTC, while flight 93's supposedly went into a hole smaller than it is high?

your wrong, aircraft industry guy. nice appeal to your own authority, though.

Whats amazing to me is how the news footage, supposedly to benefit our information on any event, was buried till now. Not only this piece of footage but others as well.

It's to the point where people are going to have to record every news channel 365 days and 24/7 in case any new 'terrorist' event occurs in the future and we don't want the media to keep us in the dark. Does this seem like how it should be working out in America?

In the video it states the debris over a 3-4 mile span.
But if you think about it somehting has to whiegh the plane done to make it crash, there has to be a base weight something big, but there's not.
And i totally agree with the reporter's attitude.She's wondering the same thing we are when she's watching it.

This is my very first post on ATS, i have not done very much research on the 9/11 conspiracy, so i have a question that i have never seen covered...Where are the reported dead passengers of flight 93 if there was never a crash? And the plane that hit the pentagon, i saw a video much like "Loose Change" and it tried to say that the plane flew OVER the pentagon...again where are the reported dead passengers? This may seem stupid to you guys, but there are family's who grieve at the loss of there loved ones who died on board of these airplanes that some people say never crashed in the first place.

damn very interesting video! i never saw it before!

yet there were entirely intact items "found" in the woods, like a bible and a terrorist's red bandana.

nice planting of evidence. it's like the whole passport thing from the WTC crashes.

anyway the whole scenario looks sketchy it looks nothing like a plane crash and for reals where the dead bodies/ body parts. it's hard for a while body to just disenegrate there would be at least some small fragments of teeth/bone etc.

they said it was being treated as a crime scene eh? so seriously where's the body fragments i know that you're supposed to cover all possible grounds and areas even it is miles away did they do that or what?

all i gotta say is damn! haha

Originally posted by triviumfan321
This is my very first post on ATS, i have not done very much research on the 9/11 conspiracy, so i have a question that i have never seen covered...Where are the reported dead passengers of flight 93 if there was never a crash? And the plane that hit the pentagon, i saw a video much like "Loose Change" and it tried to say that the plane flew OVER the pentagon...again where are the reported dead passengers? This may seem stupid to you guys, but there are family's who grieve at the loss of there loved ones who died on board of these airplanes that some people say never crashed in the first place.

this 'where are the bodies', and, 'don't hurt the feelings of the victims families' question/tactic is used ALL the time.

where are the bodies is an especially good question regarding flight 93.
as is, 'where is the investigation?'. planes are meticulously reconstructed, using the actual wreckage, after ALL passenger jet crashes.

except for 911 planes which require no investigation.

it does seem 'unthinking' to put the priority of hurt feelings of victim's families over the priority of truth. due to 911, over a 100, 000 people have been brutally murdered with the most efficient killing machines known to man. how do their families feel?

i think it's best to tell the small child that their pet died, and not LIE to them to save their feelings. especially when we're talking about the catalyzing event that starts WWIII.

the important thing to focus on is not what DID happen, but what definitely DIDN'T.

terrorists always have those red bandanas and korans. it's a dead giveaway. you can't argue with it.

U see a koran in someone's hands, UR looking at a terrorist, like, fer sure, totally, doods.

There was wreckage at the crash site. Don't just go on one video to try prove there wasn't a plane. Here's a link to a site with pictures of found wreckage of flight 98

Flight 93 Wreckage

Originally posted by sensfan
There was wreckage at the crash site. Don't just go on one video to try prove there wasn't a plane. Here's a link to a site with pictures of found wreckage of flight 98

Flight 93 Wreckage

SIX pictures? That's it? There are more pics of the lochness monster, Nessie if thats the case! Only 2/6 pictures show a pulled out shot of the surroundings as well, 4 outa 6 are close-ups of the supposed wreckage.

There just have to be more images and video of the crime scene than that.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by greatlakes]

there are no pictures of a crash site. you(sensfan) have shown pictures that have no context. they prove nothing. they could have been photographed twenty miles from one another, for all we know.

let's focus on the ACTUAL footage of the tiny crater. there is no plane, there.