I'm sorry, but those photos are taken of individual pieces of wreckage, and look like they were well placed for the photo op. How about showing a signifigant amount of wreckage at the scene that can be identified along with other pieces of different wreckage. Or how about a broader picture that shows pieces of wreckage along with other peices that you would normally expect to see with a plane crash.

Did you read my post?

The plane's fuselage burrowed straight into the earth with such force that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground

The plane came in nose down at high speed into soft ground, so most of the wreckage was buried. Are you saying the pieces that were found were planted or something?

I have some continually nagging concerns about the "look and feel" of the Shanksville crash site but to suggest that there was no wreckage to be seen is something of an over statement.

There is also a horrible inconsistency amongst the CT camps between the arguments that there was little or no wreckage to be found and the claim that the debris field was far too large to have been the result of a simple plane crash. It seems to me that a maximum of only one of these options is possible.

If you want to compare Shanksville to other crash sites in a meaningful way you're going to have to be very selective to find something that resulted from a similar underlying event rather than just grabbing images of "all kinds of plane crashes" at random. What you consider the underlying event to be, (either a high speed dive into the ground or a missile strike), I will leave you to ponder.

As someone who has actually been at a high speed jet crash can tell
you little of the debris is readily recognizable, most of aircraft is
reduced to "metallic confetti". Size and spread of debris is
dependent on speed at impact and aircraft position (belly, nose first)
and also type of ground (rock, hard dirt, soft soil). Flight 93 hit at
estimated 580 mph, nose down, and rolled half on back. Impact forces
reduced much of aircraft to twisted fragments. Hit on soft ground of
restored strip mine (no rock) and buried itself down in ground.

I find it very strange that I couldn't see any wreckage of the flight in Shanksville.

That's because you're comparing apples with oranges. Have you ever been trained in forensic aviation crash analysis ?

irst thing you need to consider (which you haven't) is the manner of impact. Normally aircraft do not nose straight in at 500knots plus.

If you want to compare Shanksville start off by comparing it with other identical impacts.

Try the Valuejet DC-9 at the Everglades

Try the Silk Air 737-300 over Sumatra

When you start to compare apples with apples and more importantly, known aircraft crashes of similar impact, then you're talking sense.

Ok I have some simple questions in regards to Flight 93.

We had somewhere between 30 and 55 minutes after Flight 93 was suspect to intercept it. The Government Official Story maintains that three F-16 fighters had been scrambled at 9:24am and were flying over Washington DC by 9:40am. These pilots saw the Pentagon on fire, the President had ordered a shoot down, the Secret Service had advised the pilots to protect the White House at all costs, and Flight 93 was the only aircraft off course,heading toward DC, with it's transponder off. Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville at 10:06am only 125 miles from DC (10 minutes away at 750mph for an F-16) and 3 nuclear power plants were in between Flight 93 and DC. Likely speeds for the F-16 and correct me if i am wrong might be 600+ for the F-16's and 300+ for the 757 converging at 1000 mph.

What did those three fighters do from 9:40am until 9:55am when they finally turned towards Flight 93 and were 60 miles out at 10:06am?

Take into account that at 8:45 we scrambled two F-15's and they reached the WTC 15 minutes later. Why were the FIRST jets so quick to react by comparison?

BeZerK

This question is off topic. The question was about wreckage.

I know for a fact that early model F-16's have a radius of action of only a mere 580 nautical miles (approx). Turn the afterburner on and you reduce that to around 200nm unless they had drop tanks. I also recall that these aircraft had no weaponry or munitions owing to the lack of warning. I gather they had orders to ram if necessary ?

If these aircraft were already in the air when attacks began, they probably had less than full fuel tanks.

Either way they were surely ordered to protect Washington DC. There was aircraft traffic everywhere and confusion about flight 93's location. If you didn't know where the attacking aircraft was, then the next best thing was wait over the likely target.

You're trying to make a conspiracy where none exists.

The topic being addressed here is about crash debris and impact point. Please don't change the subject. If you're unhappy that the impact is perfectly explainable and want to raise another topic, why not start your own thread on that new topic ?

I didn't come here to engage in your conspiracy theory. I came to answer a specific question which I do have some expertise in. I don't think you people have proved anything, other than the fact you don't understand aircrashes.

I have no doubts there was a plane but it certainly looks more like it was blown to smithereens rather than crashing. Looking at some of those pictures the plane has been torn apart and scattered, it doesn't look like a regular crash, if it did no one would raise an eyebrow. The crater gash seems a bit of an odd shape too. I think explosives were likely involved in one way or another, either on board or it was shot at or shot down. I wouldn't be surprised either way, would you?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by VicRH]

Well we also know from the forensic science of aircrash investigation that when airliners disintegrate at altitude the debris not only gets widely scattered but also does not impact very deeply and this is not evident from Shanksville.

There was a member here who posted in a similar thread about flight 93's "crash." They said pretty much everyone who lives in the town where flight 93 went down knows that it was shot down.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by DJMessiah]

Someone said that everyone else said it, but we can't tell you who said that because we can't remember, but you should accept that everyone else said it as proof that it did happen...

Well I'm glad you're not my lawyer.

Hearsay rules huh ?

Reminds me of the TWA 747 out to sea from Long Island.

Yeah everybody dancing that night at that party said they saw the missile streak up when really they didn't. They developed a photo afterwards of the plane on fire and assumed the trailing flames were from a missile... Oh Puhlease.