The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

The crater size is correct, 93 impacted at high speed and that is what it should look like. Since you lack the experience and knowledge to know this, you should seek help from professional aircraft accident investigators. But you will not, you will Spam the internet with false information and fantasy. Great work taking over 6 years to mess up every single detail of flight 93 and 9/11, something the passengers of flight 93 figured out in minutes and took action. When will you take your evidence to the authorities? Withholding all your evidence is a crime.

Originally posted by beachnut
The crater size is correct, 93 impacted at high speed and that is what it should look like. .

So your stating that Payne Stwearts small Learjet that hit the ground almost vertical and at high spped too made a bigger crater then a larger 757?

reply to post by beachnut


Do you know of any pictures of similar looking plane crashes?

Originally posted by Jezus
Do you know of any pictures of similar looking plane crashes?

Look up Payne Stewarts Learjet crash for one, but there are others.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, could you provide the links? To the Payne Stewart Lear crash?

I'd like to see, for myself, as I'm sure many would.

Here's what happened, for those who come along....for some reason the LearJet that Golfer Payne Stewart was aboard had a rapid decompression, while at altitude. A LearJet is not the same as a commercial jet, but of course it has a supplemental Oxygen system, just in case.

Here's the rub...when parked, it is common to close the valve from the O2 tank, to stop leakage. It is part of the pre-flight to ensure the valve is opened. This seems to have been missed, by somebody. Hence, a decompression, at altitude....pilots don their masks, and within seconds are unconscious, because O2 isn't flowing. We have something called "Time of Useful Consciousness" based on the altitude....it gets shorter, the higher you go. Above 40,000 feet it's like....30 seconds.

So, all aboard are unconscious, and dying. The airplane flies along, on AutoPilot, until fuel exhaustion. Then, it stalls, and falls.

Some have said it exceeded Mach during the plunge. I don't know....I know about the acceleraton of gravity, 10 m/sec squared. I know that the atmosphere then inhibits that acceleration....a skydiver will tell you about 'terminal velocity'....a spread-eagled skydiver will stabilize at about 120 MPH, in free-fall.

A LearJet, designed to fly wqith minimal air resistance, if nose-down, will likely go faster. I have no idea.

I just offer up my comments for others to ponder.....

reply to post by weedwhacker



Look guys, there is no evidence of a boeing 757 crashing in shanksville on 911. It has been proven.
Do you believe your keeping the illusion alive?

Great video.

reply to post by IvanZana


Sorry, Ivan...I'm not fluent in Spanish.

I watched about one minute, and saw pictures of airliner debris presented, although I still did not understand the words, except for '757'.....

Point is....they showed debris from an airplane, in Shanksville.

So, what's your point?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It would not take months if you are in an emergency situation. Which i beleive 9/11 was.

The only reason it takes moths to bring down a buidling if you take the time to worry about every little detail. On 9/11 they did not have the time to worry about that.

This is a point a lot of people fail to understand. It takes months to do it safely. It takes hours to just do it.

@Gavron: you failed in your challenge to prove a counter point to Ultimas position by posting something way off topic, and essentially taking the mick. You are now on ignore.

Regarding that scar in the ground. We see the mark that is supposed to be the body. We see marks that are supposed to be wings, and a bit of a mark that is supposed to be a tail (the vertical stabilizer). Where are the indents for the engines?? It's obvious they're not where they should be.

www.airdisaster.com...

Quite relevant to the discussion, this accident occurred in Ukraine in 2006. The reason for the crash was due to a high speed stall, that was unrecoverable. Just 2 minutes elapsed between the pilots reporting a fire to ATC (not loss of control) and it crashing.

It crashed near-vertically and at high speed, approaching supersonic. Just look at the wreckage. You don't see anything like that at the Flight 93 crash site because it didn't crash.

The more I look, the more I realize the events surrounding Flight 93 is BS.

My condolences to those on Flight 612.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'd like to see, for myself, as I'm sure many would.

The point is that it does not really matter what happened on the plane. The point is that the crater caused by the small Learjet is almost as big as the crater at Shankesville that was supposed to be caused by a much larger 757.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Learjet crashed just outside of Mina, South Dakota, in Edmunds County on relatively flat ground, and left a crater 42 feet (13 m) long, 21 feet (6.4 m) wide and 8 feet (2.4 m) deep.

Here are photos of the crash site, it hit the ground almost straight in doing close to the speed of sound. But as you can see in the photos there are wing pieces, wing debris, and wing tank.

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

I still can't find a picture of a plane crash of a similar size plane that looks anything like those pictures.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


UMMMM.....OK.....gee, it looks remarkably similar to the UAL 93 scene!!

Here's the problem.....people don't show ALL of the photos from Shanksville.

I keep seeing the same ones, over and over and over and over and over, again.

There certainly must be others???

It's similar to the pics seen at the 'pentagon'....showing a small hole in the wall, and claiming it's the entry point. Well....I drove past the pentagon after the impact, ant it WAS NOT A SMALL HOLE at the point of impact.

The Gov't rallied very hard, to within a year, rebuild the facade of the imact zone.

AND, no...not to cover-up, it was the Bushies trying to show they were in control....and the ramp up to the Iraq invasion......all has come to light, lately....the crap promoted to attempt to tie Hussein to 9/11, and thus, a reason for the Iraq invasion....very, very sad.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


stewarts crater was no ware near the size you suggest

Here's the problem.....people don't show ALL of the photos from Shanksville.

I keep seeing the same ones, over and over and over and over and over, again.

There certainly must be others???

Well, for me the best one is actually the footage from the news helicopter that was there within an hour or so of it crashing. This is for a few reasons:

1) The site was "fresh", so evidence should be everywhere

2) Few people would be on-site at that moment, apart from local law enforcement and fire who would be securing the scene at that moment

3) The news footage would be difficult to tamper with on a large scale, especially considering it was broadcast live at the time

4) Because it was broadcast live, there is next to no room to fabricate a story to play later

5) It offers a good aerial view of the crash site

In that footage, you see zip. A bit of a crater, a strange fire in the woods (caused by what?!), and something that looks like debris in the woods itself, yet curiously, absolutely nothing in the open area, or in/around the alleged point of impact.

There are no signs of the tail or engines, no scortch marks where fire would have burned the ground (refer to my link above of the Tupolev crash site where firefighters are tackling fire and spreading foam to prevent further fire).

Flight 93 has to be the most bizarre crash site in history. There is more identifiable wreckage on the surface after a jet has crashed into the ocean!

It looks nothing like a crash site of an airliner. There are examples crash sites that are too numerous to mention.

Occams Razor says "the simplest explanation tends to be right one". In this case, no jet crashed there.

EDIT TO ADD: The debris found 8 miles away is actually if you get there by road. Straight-line distance it is about a mile. Still, I find it very strange indeed that one engine would bury itself in the ground, and the other end up a mile away (over hilly terrain, incidentally). Considering the engine had a large vertical component, there should be witness marks as to where it impacted and bounced, but there are none. Again, because it is *absent* from the crash scene, it is something not considered by most. "Out of sight, out of mind".

I'd still like to know where that APU is, too.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage....I love yor avatar

Guess you were reponding to my post?

Here's my answer, and it is not in any way designed to be expert on UAL 93...

I am responding to your question, about the APU.

I got to thinking about that, and realized it relates, also, to the possible implications in Manhattan....sone have said the 'engine' found near the Towers, in NYC, was wrong, and thusly 'planted'.

WHAT if it was an APU that is used, by the 'Theorists'??

I mean, you know, as well as I, that the B767 had an APU in the same location as the B757.


Now, I thought about IvanZana's graphics. They showed stuff breaking loose, and flinging away. Could an Engine do that?

Of course, the APU, being in the tail, would likely not leave the crash site, very much....

thoughts????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I keep seeing the same ones, over and over and over and over and over, again.

There certainly must be others???

Yes that is a problem. We know the FBI took thousands of crime scene photos but it looks like they will not release those either.

Originally posted by Drakula
stewarts crater was no ware near the size you suggest

So you have any evidence that differs from the evidence i have posted?

reply to post by weedwhacker

I got to thinking about that, and realized it relates, also, to the possible implications in Manhattan....sone have said the 'engine' found near the Towers, in NYC, was wrong, and thusly 'planted'.

WHAT if it was an APU that is used, by the 'Theorists'??

It's possible it was an APU. The actual engine part is about the size of a trash can. The accessories and exhaust pipe make it seem bigger than it really is, and would fit with what I remember of it (at the WTC).

I mean, you know, as well as I, that the B767 had an APU in the same location as the B757.

Now, I thought about IvanZana's graphics. They showed stuff breaking loose, and flinging away. Could an Engine do that?

It's possible, but where is the evidence? If it broke off, then the story of the whole aircraft ending up in the hole starts to fall apart based on these facts alone. If the whole aircraft didn't end up in the hole, then it should be quite visible elsewhere.

Of course, the APU, being in the tail, would likely not leave the crash site, very much....

Where is the tail?

Going back to my analogy of the frangible window and the bits of bottle - break the aircraft up, and lots of smaller parts are not going to have the energy to "bury deep in the soft ground". The FDR/CVR are very unlikely to burrow 25 FEET into the ground!

If you take the idea the aircraft broke up, the story falls apart even more. Where is the wing then, that the engine was attached to? It would sheer off at the root and stay above ground, surely???

[edit on 11-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by IvanZana


DNA proves 93 hit in PA.
The debris field is exactly that of a 600 mph impact. Go to aircraft accident infestation school and your delusion will melt.
Your poorly lack of knowledge attempt to spread a lie, has failed except for those who like fantasy and junk ideas on 9/11.






93's impact, the crater, and debris scatted exactly as it would be in a 600 mph impact. A 1600 pound of TNT kinetic energy impact. Seen a 1600 pound of TNT explosion? This is the energy involved when Flight 93 impacts the ground. Not like a 120 mph accident where we see big parts, a tail, parts of a wing, this is a destructive 600 mph event. At 120 mph like a lot of other aircraft accidents, we have a 65 pound TNT kinetic energy event! On 9/11 the 600 mph impact of 93 (intact because all the debris starts at the impact crater and downwind, not any extra before impact!) you have 1600 pounds, 25 times more destruction than a normal crash. We can expect those who lack math and physics skills, to fall for the false information of 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth makes it up, they spew ideas not based on knowledge.



For those who use individual thought, this is the debris field from a high speed impact; Flight 93. It is amazing how stupid ideas are made up out of ignorance on the impact of Flight 93. Training in aircraft accident investigation would help people make correct conclusions instead of false ideas.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by beachnut


Oh, my....Beach, you wrote "infestation" when you meant "investigation"....

Oh....now I see.....a very, very clever play on words. Cudos, my friend! Cudos!!!


EDIT, because the carets are not for US to use....here's what I originally wrote:

[Breaking a leg, as they say]

See, I had to use different 'brackets'....hope it came accross as a compliment. Humor....so hard!!!


[edit on 8/12/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage.....I don't think I can accept your analogy of the bottle breaking up. UNLESS the bottle in question is moving at about 580 MPH at impact.

I realize the dilemma here.....I can throw a bottle on the pavement, and it scatters.....but the fragments that scatter, due to the KE from my throwing the bottle, and hitting a very hard surface, are scattered because the KE is converted to heat, when encountering a hard surface that they can't penetrate.

But, a bottle tossed by a human is in NO WAY similar to the energies involved in this discussion, nor are we talking about a concrete surface, at the impact point.

We must always consider not only the KE, but the momentum. Think Newton's Laws.....

ALSO, mass is a factor....a bottle is not nearly as massive as a piece of aluminum....I forget how it works, but Mass x Velocity = Energy....I think....