FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 



The airplane that allegedly crashed in Penn. had TWO massive engines and a belly full of luggage. None of those were found or displayed. No eyewitness has ever told of hauling the engines out, and the other massive parts that will not disintegrate upon impact. Why no quotes from the truckers who hauled them away? Who are they are where? Why is there no luggage laying around? There is debris, trash..like a staged event for sure. But no major parts and no testimony from anyone claiming to see, handle or transport them. Curious, eh?


Sorry eyewitness86, there are pictures of an engine being excavated from the crater.

Why are there no reports from the locals of trucks hauling the debris to the crater? Why are there no reports of excavators being hauled in and digging the holes? Why no reports of the perpetrators staging debris and trash? Why no reports from the truckers that hauled in the staged evidence? Curious, eh?




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   


The most likely situation was a missile strike which blew 93 out of the sky, this was why they needed to doctor the "crash site" and plant evidence, supposedly. Because it was destroyed at such a high altitude, killing all abord instantly, spreading their charred remains over miles and miles of wooded area, never to be seen again.


This is what I think...I think the government blew it out of the sky and that 93 was never hijacked and they found that out and it would not look good if they blew up a plane that was not hijacked so they did some doctoring.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The fuel cloud would ignite in impressive fireball. The cloud
would burn in a upward direction with little heat transfer to the ground


Yes it would...

Shanksville "Fireball"



Burning Airplane...



Jet Fuel Plume...



Same size plane... "Fireball"



I find it amazing how those that can't accept 'something is wrong' with the official story ignore all laws of physics and come up with "vaporizing aircraft" to explain things...

Well its okay because as soon as the government need more funds... something bigger will happen and all this will be swept under the table...

Maybe in 50 years when the 'perps' are all gone we will get the truth... I said maybe... we still don't have the answers to Kennedy

:shk:



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Wreckage doesn't just disappear, especially over land.


I agree. Think of the Shuttle Columbia disaster.

Excerpt from wiki page:


A massive ground search in parts of Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas recovered crew remains and many vehicle fragments.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I agree. aircraft dont simply disappear when they crash. Further more i think the people that do believe there actually was a crash dont even bother to look at the pics we've been posting because they are so convinced they are right. When you show me some hard facts (i.e. picture positive proof) that there was a plane crash, i'll believe you. No debris no plane crash.

The picture from the farmer does not look like a jet burning, like i have posted in my other post and as zorgon posted, and many others. Jet fuel burns for a long time and emits thick, nasty black smoke. That looks like a missile report.

Take the blinders off guys, there is no possible way a plane crashed where they say it did. Shanksville is home to a cover up.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   


Care to show us the wreckage of flight UA93? The plane that supposedly crashed... errr... shot down... what are we supposed to believe?



www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
americanhistory.si.edu...

Just a few pics from the crash site.....of course I realize that some will say, "How can you prove those pics were taken there?". People like this wouldnt be satisfied with the authenticity of the photos unless they themselves had been at the crash site and taken them.




The difference here is "Vaporized" leaving no trace... not "disintegrated into millions of small parts.


So some government official said vaporized instead of disintegrated.....are we going to start applying grammar standards to everything? Splitting hairs with that......




If you have helped on 5 crash sites then you know there is small scraps all over the place.


And there were....

www.911myths.com...

On their hands and knees, volunteers looking for scraps of Flight 93. One other thing, pieces of flight 93 continue to be found to this day. Because it crashed into the fill of an abandoned strip mine, the ground was not quite as solid as you might find in your yard or in a forest, one more reason why it penetrated as deep as it did. And in the fall/winter as the ground frosts and thaws, buried pieces end up surfacing.




TextYes I saw the small area of burnt trees and a little bit of white smoke (white smoke from wood burning... jet fuel plastic rubber etc burn with a thick acrid BLACK smoke)


And when where those pictures taken? After the fires had been put out....




So jet fuel CAN melt Aluminum but please explain to me how it got hot enough to vaporize it?


Once again, vaporize was a poor choice of words. There were literally thousands of pieces of that jet scattered around the crash site.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Link to Somerset County's pdf file about the recovery...

Post Gazette article about the end of the recovery....

www.post-gazette.com...

From the article....



STONYCREEK, Pa. -- The FBI said yesterday that it has finished its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 after recovering about 95 percent of the downed airliner and concluding that explosives were not responsible for bringing it down.


95% recovered, no signs of explosives.......




FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long from a jetliner that was 155 feet long.




The heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section of engine fan.




Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris -- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been made ... but we're not commenting.





No actually the initial report I heard on the radio said a 'few miles away'


And we all know that reporters NEVER make mistakes...just ask Albert Pujols.



As I said that reports is no longer available in the same way mirageofdeceit cannot find his material


Yes, because when the media realizes they've posted an inaccurate story, they retract it. Like the "car bomb" at the State Department that day or the AP report the Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland....




This sight lists many references to the engine found a great distance from the site.


About 300 yards away from the crash site...short distance for a 1,000 pound piece of wreckage moving at 500 knots. And of course this also lays to rest any ideas that a Sidewinder brought down Flight 93, because it would have homed in on the engines and blasted them to pieces that would have scattered over a much wider area. Finding the large chunks of the engines shows that they were intact at time of impact with the ground.




Thats a pretty sweet way to make a post with a bunch of quotes that you snipped to pieces.


Then go to your library and read the articles in their entirety.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870




Sorry eyewitness86, there are pictures of an engine being excavated from the crater.


There is no evidence that this engine was from a Boeing 757 or from a United Airines Boeing 757. There is no evidence that another engine was found. Its curious that since the airplane hit inverted in a 35 degree dive why any engine was found buried as they should have been shielded from being imbedded in the ground by the wing itself.


Why are there no reports from the locals of trucks hauling the debris to the crater? Why are there no reports of excavators being hauled in and digging the holes? Why no reports of the perpetrators staging debris and trash? Why no reports from the truckers that hauled in the staged evidence? Curious, eh?


Well actually the curious thing is that the airplane allegedly crashed at 10:03 and the first national television feed of the UAL 93 scrape in the ground was broadcast at 5:00pm. That was 7 hours later.

Do you think they needed time to prepare the site? Do you think they told the television crews, "Hold on guys were still getting the accident site ready?"

Or do you think they told the television crews, "Hold on guys this is a crime scene, you can't take pictures here until 5 pm?"

But thanks for your post anyway Boone 870 as lacking in verifiable information that it is.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   


Well actually the curious thing is that the airplane allegedly crashed at 10:03 and the first national television feed of the UAL 93 scrape in the ground was broadcast at 5:00pm. That was 7 hours later


Talk about a "lack of verifiable information" Oh wait, I can verify that what Johnlear said was not true. My wife was dropping our kids off at school that day when the first reports came in about the first plane hitting the WTC, five minutes later, she was at home watching on TV, when the second jet hit as she watched...she stuck a tape in the VCR and hit record. The first feed of UAL 93's grave was shown approximately 10:30 CDT.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Talk about a "lack of verifiable information" Oh wait, I can verify that what Johnlear said was not true. My wife was dropping our kids off at school that day when the first reports came in about the first plane hitting the WTC, five minutes later, she was at home watching on TV, when the second jet hit as she watched...she stuck a tape in the VCR and hit record. The first feed of UAL 93's grave was shown approximately 10:30 CDT.



Thanks for the input Swampfox46_1999, I take it we have your 'word' on this?

Let me know where and how you are going to post that video. Unless...its been.....lost?

Thanks again for the input.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



Well actually the curious thing is that the airplane allegedly crashed at 10:03 and the first national television feed of the UAL 93 scrape in the ground was broadcast at 5:00pm. That was 7 hours later


Talk about a "lack of verifiable information" Oh wait, I can verify that what Johnlear said was not true. My wife was dropping our kids off at school that day when the first reports came in about the first plane hitting the WTC, five minutes later, she was at home watching on TV, when the second jet hit as she watched...she stuck a tape in the VCR and hit record. The first feed of UAL 93's grave was shown approximately 10:30 CDT.



THis is true as I clearly remember it. Called home as soon as I heard it on cnn and then saw footage shortly thereafter. As I said Shanksville is remote. A TV crew would have had to come from Pittsburgh - an hour away or perhaps a small crew from Johnstown, 30 minutes away, but without capability to transmit from the scene. Return trip to the Johnstown studio would make it one hour before anything got on the air. There are no facilities or resources nearby for one hundred miles (Pittsburgh is closest large city) to stage this - no crews/trucks to transport anything let alone of this magnitude. I think 93 was hijacked, passengers struggled with hijackers, plane veered too close to Raven Rock and or Camp David and was shot down as it was out of control and going down anyway . Shot down at a very low altitude.
Thoughts?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Let me know where and how you are going to post that video. Unless...its been.....lost?


Lost? nope, sitting in my entertainment center with the rest of my videos...as for posting it..not going to happen. You can do your own research and find the news footage for yourself.

As many times as you have called my integrity into question Mr. Lear, I will do no favors for you.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



originally posted by John Lear
There is no evidence that this engine was from a Boeing 757 or from a United Airines Boeing 757


I think you missed my point John. Eyewitness 86 implied that there was no engine at the crash scene because no one reported that they saw an engine being removed or no pictures of an engine.

I rebutted by stating that there were pictures of an engine in a crater and that there were no reports of an engine being planted.

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the debris was planted?

I'm waiting with baited breath for your proof
!



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




Lost? nope, sitting in my entertainment center with the rest of my videos...as for posting it..not going to happen. You can do your own research and find the news footage for yourself.


Hmmmmmmmmm. The plot thickens. Now I have to do my own research on something that I originally researched and posted?

Thanks for your input Swampfox, I was particularly intrigued at your response.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870




Do you have any verifiable evidence that the debris was planted?

I'm waiting with baited breath for your proof
!



Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)

Nope. No videos of the debris being planted. It might have been a secret op, but thats just a guess.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Why are the pictures of the biggest pieces closeups with no significant backround? Why don't these larger pieces appear in more panoramic shots? Why are the shots of all the little pieces taken from a distance, making it practically impossible to distinguish them from stones?

Why are we expected to believe that all the fuel evaporated in one big fireball in Penn while it burned away like napalm in the WTC?





[edit on 12/16/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




Please keep in mind that 7 to 9 of the alleged dead hijackers named, complete with the same faces, ended up being found alive in the Middle East and Central Asia. But they were on US bureaucrats' list presented to the media for publication as falsely accused alleged dead 9/11 hijackers.


Do you have evidence of this? I'm not being snarky. I have heard this before but have never been able to verify. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Someone tried to explain away the missing engine as the result of a Sidewinder missile. Even if 93 was shot down, there is no certainty that it was taken down with a heat-seeker. A radar-guided missile could have just as easily done the job.

There is no AA missile that I know of that will "vaporize" an airliner, in reference to other claims.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Do you have evidence of this? I'm not being snarky. I have heard this before but have never been able to verify. Thanks.


Glad to help




thunderbay.indymedia.org...

ATS thread on this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another ATS thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

7 Of 19 FBI Identified Hijackers Located Alive After WTC Attacks
7 of the 19 FBI identified WTC Hijackers were found alive AFTER September 11. The 7 men were NOT on the planes! So WHY did NBC and CBS continue to deceive ...
www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
Full details of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. At least 7 of the FBI named perpetrators have been confirmed as being alive by mainstream news sources.
www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

MANY OF THE 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE. : Thunderbay IMC
Some of Eric Hufschmid's early web articles on 9-11 can be found at ... all the 9/11 hijackers still alive wthin united state and will trying smuggle out of ...
thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/2373_comment.php



www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 




Are you kidding Boone 870? One engine out of a whole Boeing 757? No tail parts? (The tail is the last section of the airplane to arrive at the scene of the accident. It usually survives because it is going so much slower and so less apt to disintegrate.)


No tail parts? Since the plane hit at a 35° dive, nearly inverted, at 560 mph, exactly how much speed do you think the fuselage would have bled off before the tail struck? Enough to leave recognizable pieces of the tail section?
Are all aircraft accidents the same now? I've seen pictures of accidents where the cockpit survived. Should I expect to see an intact cockpit from flight 93?

I know what happened! They ran out of tail sections at the Super Secret Military Industrial Complex Staged Aircraft Accident Scene for Psych Ops Boneyard. That's why there's no tail section at the Flight 93 crash site.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Most excellent. Thanks for the info. I plan to present this to some hardcore "debunkie junkies" here at home.

I wonder why none of them have sued for defamation of character.


[edit on 12/16/0707 by jackinthebox]





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join