FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

Makes you wonder who the 2 or 3 people who believe the plane and all its parts 'Atomized' while a passports and a red bandana survived.

Umm, I dont recall anyone claiming that the plane "atomized", NOW the fuel that didn't ignite...thats another subject.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Heavy based carbon fossil fuel does not simply disappear without a trace. Some parts will become oderless, tasteless, untouchable, unheard, and unseen bound and unbound gases as evaporation takes place.

Fuel residue will be left burned or not. It takes heat applied to begin the evaporation process. Amount of heat building to complete evaporation time, for what will be evaporated, is not going to be minutes or a couple of hours depending only on bright sunlight, at least not with fossil fuel.

Cold keeps liquids in cold liquid or solid state. There would be no evaporation the higher the altitude is, because it is dang cold up there and gets colder the higher the altitude.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I am referring to a book. I am aware parts of the book were posted to the Internet. However, I have no idea who posted parts of the book. It may not have been the author of the book.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I neglected to state that the book is well-documented, complete with pages of footnotes, as to from where those documents originated. It seems you have made assumptions that are not true regarding the book.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I know enough about interceptor planes to know it does not take 2 or more hours to get them off the ground, particularly in emergency situations. That left plenty of time for interceptors to intercept, not necessarily shoot down, alleged Flight 93. I am gauging that from the media reported and described expert military jet hairpin turn over the Cleveland area to head southeast. I know those interceptors are capable of flying much faster than any Boeing 757, with far more free and easy maneuverablity.

There seems to be more proof that a missile was used to cause the crater at the Shanksville crater site and not a plane.

THE SCREAMING THING

At the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing” that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Chris Smith, the groundskeeper at the golf course, said something with a “very loud screeching sound” passed over in the immediate vicinity of the golf course before he heard a huge explosion.

“It was like nothing I’ve ever heard before,” Smith said.

The explosion that followed sounded like a “sonic boom,” he said. Smith and others said they felt the shock wave from the explosion.

Smith said he was used to seeing a variety of military aircraft from the nearby Air National Guard bases in Johnstown and Cumberland, Md.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Another groundskeeper said he saw a silver plane pass overhead toward the crash site from the southeast after hearing the loud “screeching” sound. The large silver plane was at an elevation of several thousand feet, he said.

A local veteran who flew combat helicopters in the Vietnam War told AFP that the high-pitched screeching sound was indicative of a missile.

Shown a photo of an A-10 Warthog, the groundskeeper identified it as the kind of plane that circled the crash site at a very low altitude three times before flying away. He recognized the two vertical fins on the rear of the plane. “Nobody was interested in what we saw,” he said. “They didn’t even ask us.”

Would you not agree that the Shankville crater looks like this Jet launch missile?

Originally posted by MikeVet

Originally posted by DrZERO

Where did you find information on the type of lens used in the photo? How do you know the distance from which the picture was taken? Common sense would dictate that unbroken grass would not be growing out of a weathered scar which was the supposed impact site of an airliner wing/engine.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by DrZERO]

Nice. You've got your map. But now you're defending your evidence instead of rethinking your position.

That quote was questions for SwampFox in regards to statements he made to the location of the photographer and the type of lens he was using. I find interesting that SwampFox has been back to address other posts and conveniently ignored my questions.

At the time of my post I had not yet seen Boone's post of the USGS map with his notations of the crash site superimposed. His post is one of a handful here that have had any relevance to the thread, I look forward to examining it in more detail.

I am not defending anything, I am simply offering my opinion of a picture that was posted here.

Look, I don't know what you think you're seeing in that photo you've doctored up, but the big red circle is hilighting grass that's growing outside the impact area. The stalks start out of frame. There's no 2 ways about that.

I have not "doctored up" anything. I have simply diagramed a photo to exemplify my point of view.

I see your point in regards to the grass at the very bottom of the large red circle, they do appear to be originating from out of frame. But there are also blades of grass in the center and upper portions of the large circle (especially upper-left) that appear to me to be growing out of the indentation or "wing scar." I have tried zooming in but with no luck, the picture is too low in resolution. Perhaps Ivan has a higher res copy that we can examine more thoroughly.

The ear on our right is the 1/2 burnt one we talked about earlier, and if you look close, you can see that it's roots are holding onto a clump of dried dirt. So it's been uprooted, set on fire, flung in the air and landed back down in the scar.

LOL, I noticed afterwards that my little diagram does resemble Mickey Mouse, that was unintended. As for the clump of dirt, it does not appeared to be burnt up in any way, you can clearly see the blades of grass intact. It seems that ejecta from an impact of a jetliner fuel tank would be burnt up as you describe.

The red circle on our left..... I see nothing there, unless you're trying to imply grass that is growing outside the strike area and leaning over above it is coming from inside the scar. Can you be more specific?

Have to disagree here, I can clearly see 2 blades of grass in particular that are leaning back towards to left, indicating that they originate from inside the indentation. Once again a higher resolution picture to examine would be nice.

Also, there's no scale in that photo. I'd like to see a comparison of wing thickness vs scar width.

Seems to be plenty of objects in the photo that one could use for scale. Not sure why it matters as to a comparison of wing thickness vs. scar width, though. How can anyone really know what width scar a wing on impact would produce on these types of soil conditions?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by MikeVet
Take all this into account, and do you still believe the CT opinion that a missle was delivered into an old naturally occuring erosion trench to make it look like a plane hit there?

Quite frankly, MikeVet, I don't know what to believe. We as tax-paying American Citizens have gotten the high-hard one on this subject as to what really happened on 9/11. Point in case the U.S. Government spent over 80 Million dollars investigating the Clintons in their various wheelings and dealings including "White-Watergate." That's 80 MILLION on two crooks. In comparison they spent only 15 million to investigate the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens. Not to mention the discrepancies of the evidence, and the actual OMISSION of evidence in the "Official Report."

Sorry to go off topic but something does not smell right with this, so yes, to answer your question it is easier for me to believe that a missile could be delivered into an old naturally occurring erosion trench than it is for me to believe that 19 guys armed with box-cutters could hijack 4 airliners and not one of them intercepted by NORAD. And with one of them hitting their target in the most heavily protected piece of airspace on Earth (D.C.)

Edit- hey, how are you determining weathered vs unweathered dirt in your photo? By the color? Are you calling the unweathered dirt that because of its darker color? That would imply that it's wetter, yes? Do you think the fire guys standing around in the background had anything to do with that?

Yes, wetter because of the "fire guys," wetter because soil underneath the surface has more moisture than that of soil that's been baking in the sun for who knows how long. Either way, if the indentation was caused by a wing strike there would be some type of indication of recent disturbance, and not blades of unbroken grass growing out of dry, weathered dirt.

You seen to think that there are dozens of fighters are standing by
manned and ready 24/7 . On Sept 11 there were 14 fighters ready at
7 bases to cover the whole country. For example the ANG base at
Hancock Field, Syracuse NY did not get 2 F16's airborne until 10:42 am
40 minutes after Flight 93 crashed.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Hancock is only 40 miles from NEADS at Griffiss airbase Rome NY
Being from that part of upstate NY have meet several people from
NEADS who told me some background of 9/11.

Originally posted by DrZERO
Quite frankly, MikeVet, I don't know what to believe. We as tax-paying American Citizens have gotten the high-hard one on this subject as to what really happened on 9/11. Point in case the U.S. Government spent over 80 Million dollars investigating the Clintons in their various wheelings and dealings including "White-Watergate." That's 80 MILLION on two crooks. In comparison they spent only 15 million to investigate the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens. Not to mention the discrepancies of the evidence, and the actual OMISSION of evidence in the "Official Report."

Sorry to go off topic but something does not smell right with this, so yes, to answer your question it is easier for me to believe that a missile could be delivered into an old naturally occurring erosion trench than it is for me to believe that 19 guys armed with box-cutters could hijack 4 airliners and not one of them intercepted by NORAD. And with one of them hitting their target in the most heavily protected piece of airspace on Earth (D.C.)

Yes, wetter because of the "fire guys," wetter because soil underneath the surface has more moisture than that of soil that's been baking in the sun for who knows how long. Either way, if the indentation was caused by a wing strike there would be some type of indication of recent disturbance, and not blades of unbroken grass growing out of dry, weathered dirt.

1- of course you realize that Clinton was EXACTLY the kind of liar the right said he was when he was exposed lying under oath, right? So they spent a ton of cash proving he was a scum but wasn't voted out of office because Democrats had the majority. Don't you feel upset about that also?

2- so i THINK you see that the USGS scar was in another location. Why do you still favor the missle theory? The rest is OT.

3- you're still clinging to the wethered dirt, even though you've seen that the USGS scar is in another location? Or do you believe the USGS map to be false? That's the only way that you can still believe in the whole weathered dirt/clumps of grass/missle theory.

reply to post by thedman


I have no idea why I keep seeing the same strawman argument from people still embracing the "official" reports.

What the dickens are those planes for, if not to be prepared 24/7 to defend the US? Instead of playing war games on 9/11, as has been reported from several sources with FEMA arriving on 9/10/2001 in NYC, they should have been on stand-by alert as soon as the alleged second plane allegedly hit the second twin tower. I know I have seen military and ex-military people in agreement with me on that.

The military had at least an hour between that alleged media reported hairpin turn over Cleveland to switch from west to southeast. That gave them at least 3 hours between heading west from the east coast, alleged hairpin turning over Cleveland before allegedly arriving over Shanksville.

What good is a national defense when it isn't there when actually needed?

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- of course you realize that Clinton was EXACTLY the kind of liar the right said he was when he was exposed lying under oath, right? So they spent a ton of cash proving he was a scum but wasn't voted out of office because Democrats had the majority. Don't you feel upset about that also

What I am upset about in regards to that is the subject of a totally different thread, but I think you see my point here, though. The same "Right" spent roughly 5 times more investigating a P.O.S lying politician (the term "lying politician" is redundant in my opinion) than they did investigating the murder of 3,000 American citizens, does this not seem suspect to you on it's face notwithstanding any crazy "conspiracy theories?"

2- so i THINK you see that the USGS scar was in another location. Why do you still favor the missle theory? The rest is OT.

Not sure on this yet, have not had time to fully examine the map Boone posted. From some of the pictures I have seen, though, that is what it looks like (a missile impact on top of an older scar.) And Boone's aerial shot is one of those pics. Earlier in the thread Apex gave an explanation on why it might look like that, i.e. heavier parts between wings forming the round crater independent of the wing scars. I'm really not familiar enough with aircraft design to comment on that opinion. I appealed to John Lear but he did not comment, probably because he thinks that there was no plane to begin with, so the whole point is moot.

John, in theory, if a plane where to crash in such a manner that the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 93 describes (assuming of course that the data was not faked, which I know you think it was), would it make an impact crater like that?? Would heavier elements in the fuselage cause a round impact crater that would have appeared to be formed after the impact of the wings, even though the nose of the plane hit first?

Not sure what "OT" stands for, sorry.

3- you're still clinging to the wethered dirt, even though you've seen that the USGS scar is in another location? Or do you believe the USGS map to be false? That's the only way that you can still believe in the whole weathered dirt/clumps of grass/missle theory.

No, not clinging to anything. In the picture I diagramed it looks to me the area within the "wing scar" is composed of undisturbed, weathered dirt with unbroken blades of grass growing out of them.

Not sure that the scar is in another location just because Boone says so, I will need to investigate myself, but I do appreciate his post nonetheless. Another possibility: the USGS map makes it seem that the entire area had many such scars. Is it possible that there was a similar scar that was impacted on 9/11? I’m not sure, but as I said further investigation is needed on my part.

Originally posted by thedman
You seen to think that there are dozens of fighters are standing by
manned and ready 24/7 . On Sept 11 there were 14 fighters ready at
7 bases to cover the whole country . . .

I wonder where the rest were? Oh yeah, tracking the "fake terrorists" during the numerous "war game" exercises going on that day. What a co-winki-dink.

reply to post by johnlear

Could you please post a copy or reference to the bond that was posted for the reclamation of the Diamond T Portals?

The reason I ask is that there shold be a record of the BLM inspection of the reclamation work and return of the bond.

The bonds haven't been released yet. They were due to be released in 2003, but there were problems with seepage that prevented their release.

Still looking for the original bonds that were filed though.

The military had at least an hour between that alleged media reported hairpin turn over Cleveland to switch from west to southeast. That gave them at least 3 hours between heading west from the east coast, alleged hairpin turning over Cleveland before allegedly arriving over Shanksville.

Actually had little over 1/2 hour from time Flight 95 hijacked until crashed
at Shanksville. NORAD alert bases were on the coast as that was any
threats were believed to come from - not from hijacked planes in the
middle of the country. It is very difficult to keep aircraft on continous
alerts - it wears out the pilots/ground crews. Also planes have to be
serviced at regular intervals keeping them out of service.

NEADS was notified at 8:37 of Flight 11 hijacking - Otis ANG was alerted
at 8:40 to scamble fighters, fighters were rolling at 8:46 - time Flight 11
slammed into North Tower. The Otis fighters arrived outside NY just
after 9 am - were parked offshore while controllers attempted to
find Flight 11 unaware it was plane that hit WTC. While waiting for orders
could see smoke from Flight 175 striking other tower.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

I think Ivan's pictures really do tell the tale. I'm done with this thread for now. I see no evidence of a jet airliner crashing into that field, much less a specific airline flight.

reply to post by DrZERO


Wait a minute here-

Boone
posted on 31-12-2007 @ 08:31 PM
USGS scar does not line up with Flight 93 scar.

DrZero
posted on 1-1-2008 @ 01:15 AM
The post I have been waiting for, and it only took 34 pages and a little bit of belly-aching to get it.

DrZero
posted on 1-1-2008 @ 02:10 AM
Where did you find information on the type of lens used in the photo?

MikeVet
posted on 1-1-2008 @ 11:09 AM
Nice. You've got your map. But now you're defending your evidence instead of rethinking your position.


DrZero
posted on 1-1-2008 @ 05:38 PM
That quote was questions for SwampFox in regards to statements he made to the location of the photographer and the type of lens he was using. I find interesting that SwampFox has been back to address other posts and conveniently ignored my questions.

At the time of my post I had not yet seen Boone's post of the USGS map with his notations of the crash site superimposed.


Are you sure you want to stick to your claimed timeline?

It appears that you may be confused. Please take this "out" I'm giving you...

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I think Ivan's pictures really do tell the tale.

I agree with this.

All of Ivan's photos of missle/bomb strikes have no debris in them, just a clean hole, since the blast throws all the missle/bomb debris out of the hole it leaves.

However, the hole in Shanksville has easily seen mechanical debris in it. Shoot, even Orionstars mentioned it cuz he saw that.

No match. Positive proof that 93 went down in that field.

reply to post by thedman


I used the flight times it would normally take which would include delayed flight, waiting around for a runway to take off and one for landing. I did overestimate the times. That still changes nothing as far as the military not being prepared to defend this country on 9/11. According to NORAD accounting, Dayton base interceptors had approximately 47 minutes to respond. Closer to an hour than 1/2 hour.

Here are the times, and they did have over 1/2 hour to get those military jets in the air and intercept before 10:03 am. According the BTS, alleged Flight 93 left the east coast at 8:28 am (must have had an immediate free runway which is odd in itself), and was in contact with the Cleveland FAA center at 9:28 am, when it was last allegedly heard. At 10:03 am, the alleged Flight 93 allegedly crashed in the Shanksville. That is where the cited excerpt below becomes highly interesting.

According to an ex-USAF flight officer, who had flown military inceptors, he said any inceptors could have arrived at any alleged plane before it got to the Ohio-PA border. It was coming out of Dayton. All they had to do was fly northeast and meet it coming in from the notyhwest. They should have been on stand-by ready to go, all considered as to what else had transpired that morning. Particularly, when the FAA center received no response after 9:28 am.

I found the following to be a highly interesting accounting. I particularly agreed with the part that stated no Boeing 757 fit into any hole in the ground in Shanksville. I thought that a very astute observation, and I immediately agreed. Where are there any indentations to indicate any alleged plane had any engines? I cannot imagine any plane flying without a fuselage, its tail between its wings, and no engines.

911review.org...

"Significance and conclusion

The existence of UA 93-North is confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report, Stacey Taylor and Bill Wright. The existence of UA 93-South is confirmed by radar data, personnel from Pittsburgh Airport and the ATC recordings. It is impossible to put all these sources under only one hat.

Okay, the attentive reader might say, I accept that there were two different UA 93's over Pennsylvania - but for what purpose? What was the underlying plan of this plane swap?

Before presenting a possible and, in my eyes, probable answer, I'd like to emphasize the general concept reflected by the twin UA 93: the change of an aircraft's identity while it is airborne. Many researchers are convinced that the original airliners of 9/11 were replaced by "drones", remote controlled objects which were then directed into their respective targets. Now we have also seriously to consider that planes were replaced by planes. UA 93 is the best example because it is a chameleon flight:

- there are two different take-off times for UA 93: the official one - 8:41 - and the real one - 8:28 (BTS database).

- FAA notified NORAD at 9:16 that UA 93 was hijacked, but UA 93 checked in with Cleveland Center normally at about 9:20 and stopped communication not earlier than 9:28. So which plane was reported hijacked at 9:16?

- Cleveland Center noticed screams and hijacker voices coming from a plane, but the controller thought they originated from Delta 1989, not from UA 93.

- UA 93 was reported to make a landing at Cleveland Airport at 10:45 and was later "renamed" as Delta 1989.

Obviously, in the case of UA 93 the perpetrators of 9/11 made extensive usage of the "identity change in the air" tactics. It seems that UA 93-North and UA 93-South had different tasks; while UA 93-South' purpose was to create the "official flight path", the existence of UA 93-North was kept hidden - maybe because its passengers were supposed to be hidden. Interestingly, the radar loss of UA 93-South coincides with the flight plan change/transponder-back-on action of UA 93-North. Both occurred at 9:55~9:56. This "coincidence" suggests that UA 93-North "replaced" UA 93-South: identity change!

What happened to the planes?

The case of the double UA 93 seems to be proven. In this section I present possible answers concerning their fate after the swap. These should not be dismissed as pure speculation; rather, it is well-founded speculation.

We don't know what happened to UA 93-South, but its behaviour -going down under 4000 ft, becoming invisible to controllers - strongly suggests that its intention was to land somewhere in the Pittsburgh area. Alle we have to look for now is an airport in this area which is able to handle big airliners. I leave it to the reader to spot this airport.

And UA 93-North? First, it is very unlikely that it crashed at Shanksville for the simple reason that a big airliner doesn't fit into the crater there. Second, there are several reports about a "UA 93" after the alleged plane crash:

In The Secret Hijacking, I postulated the existence of a secret fifth plane which was reported in the morning of 9/11 on all major news channels but was dropped soon everywhere: the Fifth Plane.

UA 93-North fits this fifth plane splendidly. It crossed Johnstown at 10:00; it crossed the alleged crash site at 10:03; it continued to head for Washington; Cleveland Center warned NEADS of UA 93-North at 10:07 (after the alleged crash of UA 93!); UA 93-North appeared on the radar screens of Washington enroute controllers, despite the fact that it was never in their airspace; sitting in his shelter, Cheney was told between 10:10 and 10:15 that a plane (UA 93-North) was 80 miles out of Washington, a bit later 60 miles out; before reaching Washington, UA 93-North was intercepted by fighters and escorted to Cleveland, where the 200 passengers were evacuated to a nearby NASA hangar."

Actually, the media in Cleveland reported two planes landed on 9/11, and one was Flight 93. Then it was changed by the next day to one plane, and that was Delta. Delta was reported to land due to the FAA ordering all planes but interceptors to land. Alleged Flight 93 was reported to have a bomb aboard, and the FAA also ordered it to land in Cleveland, where it was videotaped by all Cleveland TV media on 9/11 being all alone on some outlying area of a runway.

The videotaping was done and reported that all passengers were off the plane by the time they started filming, for live news on site programming interupt which happened sometime before noon. All we saw on the videotape was the plane door open and no sign of passengers on board or leaving the plane.

It was reported they had been shuttled to NASA while the bomb squad would be checking the plane. It was later reported no bomb was found.

These are the questions that immediately came to mind when I watched those tapes the first time.

Who was controlling any bomb?

Why would they allow the plane to land and chance getting caught?

If no one was making any bomb threats onboard, how did anyone know there was a bomb on board?

But there was that empty plane all alone and being called Flight 93. Plane landed due to bomb threat.

reply to post by MikeVet


Simply to clarify, I was referring to the picture with the military standing around a hole and metal being very observable in the hole.

The hole at Shanksville I saw nothing resembling metal in any photos, including ariel photos.