NEW 9/11 VIDEO - FLIGHT 93 Fraud - #1 Smoking Gun evidence

reply to post by thedman

---

Did you see a hole that big or is that what they said?I can look at the video and know better. Oh yea this was a magical self burying plane crash.


[edit on 6-9-2007 by shug7272]

You wouldn't have had to ask me that if you had read my posts.

On two occasions, I said:

"I don't think Flight 93 crashed there either, but this is incorrect. They are awfully close, but they're not the same."

"I believe 9/11 was an inside job. As I said before, I don't even fully believe Flight 93 crashed there. But it hurts our "cause" to accept a bunch of BS as truth. If it needs to be debunked, it's better that WE debunk it, rather than having the other side do it and knock one more chunk off of our unstable movement."

Note that last one. "But it hurts our "cause" to accept a bunch of BS as truth. If it needs to be debunked, it's better that WE debunk it,"

Don't you agree?

I'll say it again, I'm not convinced Flight 93 crashed there. But that doesn't mean we need to speculate about some dirt spots. They could have gone out on September 10th, 2001 and dug those holes and had the same outcome. Why 1994?

People really need to question both sides before accepting anything.

Certainly, I agree. Sorry, there are a lot of posts here and I miss a lot skimming through...

If they dug those holes on Sept 10th then why didn't they scatter a few bits of debris to at least make it look convincing???

Where is the real wreckage???

reply to post by JimmyBlonde

---

I'm not saying they dug those holes on September 10th. I'm saying they could have and had the same outcome as if they did it in 1994. What I'm basically saying is there's no point in digging those holes in 1994. It's not like it was such a huge project that it needed to take 7 years.

Again, I'm not convinced Flight 93 crashed there, so I'm not sure why you're asking me where the wreckage is.

Nails don't have wings which I think would make quite a bit of difference. I figure they would help reduce the momentum sufficiently enough to leave something above the ground, not completely bury it. I know aluminium wings crumple but I still think something would remain above ground.

As for the second part, I understood that they were not allowed to hear the last 4 (crucial) minutes of the flight recordings.

yeah?...very nice...how lovely...another video, another image, another argument...brilliant! - While they # us we sit back and # all and watch videos and analyze and....oooh god....what ya going do to stop this? - there's a billion pundits out there making more videos adding lines onto images and showing you why it couldn't be done....

but we do piss all...

you want to stop being bummed again for IRAN then you better stop paying your taxes... or storm the whatever...cos it's gonna happen again and no amount of videos are going to stop that...

You hit it pretty dead on, rather you believe 911 was a conspiracy or not you have to know the government cares not for what we think and does what they want. Whats that, we are fighting a never ending war on terrorism but yet our borders are pourus and we now allow Mexican truckers to just come on in. BRILLIANT. Thatll stop them terrorists. The have their own agendas and know Americans are too fat and lazy to stand up and stop them. We just want to drive our cars that cost more than what most of the world lives in. We just want to watch the Simpsons.. we just want to spend more on one meal in a restaurant than many families spend all month if not all YEAR on food. Ridiculous. BTW I am a proud American and myself included in the above. Doesnt mean I cant see that I as well as the rest of my country are fat, lazy, spoiled brats.

The lack of material at the alleged crash site.

The size of the crater.

The confirmed wreckage found within a wide radius.

The eyewitness reports.


Plus many, many other pieces of evidence all seems to point to an obvious conclusion.

The plane broke up before hitting the ground.

The question is why, exceeding structural limits or shot down.

So where on earth did the passengers end up if it did not crash?
If they landed at Cleveland then are we saying that all of the families are involved in this cover up? That the families have been reunited with they "lost" loved ones on Flight 93?

United 93 did not land in Cleveland. The AP originally posted a story on their wires that it had. A local station in Ohio linked it onto their site. When the AP ran the correction a couple minutes later, the local station removed the link, but not the story.

A couple of years after 2001, someone contacted the reporter who had posted the untrue AP story and the reporter finally got around to taking the bad store off of the site. However, by then, it had already been passed around the conspiracy nuts.

As for NASA, that day, a KC-135 filled with NASA scientists (okay it was one of the Vomit Comets they were doing experiments on) was grounded at Cleveland. The plane was parked at the NASA hanger and the scientists were taken by bus to local hotels.....no mystery, no "black bus" to the execution chamber for innocent airline passengers, no conspiracy....

You really destroy your own credibility when you make ignorant labels such as this one.



I bet there was no conspiracy on 9/11, right?

No, there was a conspiracy on 9/11...it involved Osama Bin Laden, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the 19 lunatics the flew the planes into the buildings. By the way, when someone bases their whole viewpoint on a story that both AP and the reporter who posted it says was wrong...im sorry, but they arent the brightest bulbs in the lamp store

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

---

... The only conspiracy was between a bunch of Muslim men to destroy a symbol of America.

Anyways, this whole Flight 93 conspiracy was always weird to me. Cause if they shot it down...? who cares? Most of the forum members here always whine about the fighters that could have shot down the planes that hit the WTCs. Yet they get all in a huff when there's a possibility that it happened with Flight 93.

I've never really studied the Flight 93 conspiracy. It could be true, it could not be, I really don't see why it matters.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

Who says the "truth movement" is based solely on that report?

Yeah, they did it to destroy our freedoms. So to protect us, our government is going to take away our freedoms. But they turn around and claim they're defending our freedoms from the men who want to take away our freedoms, but the only one's I see taking them away are the same people claiming to defend them.

That somehow makes sense in the minds of Americans.

And yeah, they're evil, they want to destroy a symbol of America. It doesn't matter that we meddle in their political affairs, bomb their people when we feel like it, occupy their land, support Palestine being taken away from them to give the Jewish people a country, give the leaders the weapons only to put sanctions on the countries because of those very weapons - which, the sanctions only result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and we have this hypocritical view where we base our foreign policy, allegedly, at all costs, to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons, while allowing Israel to have them, and having thousands of our own.

But yes, they're the bad guys. Shame on them.

Yep. Pretty much.

Nice tangent though.

The impact of flight 93 and the plane that hit the Pentagon should have left wing impact impressions. The wings have mass clearly so the speed of the plane would increase that mass. We all saw the wings leave their mark in the world trade centers. Someone explain to me why physics did not apply to the other two planes. Very strange if you ask me. We have all seen the cartoons where an impression is left when a character flys through a wall. That same principle is true with regard to an object traveling at high speed. The mass of those wings would have left an impression.

Thats what I thought they barley even talked about the crash in the field.

Unless the plane was travelling at speeds fast enough to rival the 'c' limit, the mass of the wings would have stayed the same.

You're probably thinking about momentum increasing - not mass. Momentum is a vector quantity, derived by multiplying the scalar mass by the velocity vector.

Thanks for posting. This is even better evidence than the Pentagon's possible missile, not plane crash.