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

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA.....it is difficult, because you jump in, and leave a 'bomb' in the form a 'Hit-and-Run' style attack.....but it leaves a 'dangling participle' in the form of a question......

IF your last post was referring to the crash of the NorthWest Flight 255 in Detroit, back in 1987.....then please say so.

The airplane was doomed, once the Take-off was started. HAD NOTHING to do with hitting light poles.....the jet was already out of control, by then!!!

A simple search of the accident will confirm.....the pilots made a mistake....they DID NOT set the flaps/slats for Take-Off. The built-in warning system did not activate, for some reason.....the airplane stalled and crashed.....and during the crash sequence hit a light pole!

Tragic, yes!! Relevant?? No.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The airplane was doomed, once the Take-off was started.

But the plane was brought down when it hit a light pole and sheared off a section of wing.

It was still flying untill it hit the pole, thats what brought it down.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It was still flying untill it hit the pole, thats what brought it down.

In the words of one comedian, "It was flying all the way to the scene of the crash".
It was going down anyway, and happened to hit the pole before the ground. Big mystery there.

Originally posted by gavron
It was going down anyway, and happened to hit the pole before the ground. Big mystery there.

But the point is that it hit a light pole and a section of wing as sheared off.

So i guess AA77 was a miracle plane that could not be harmed by hitting light poles (as the official story states)

Just like all the miracles that happened that day.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So i guess AA77 was a miracle plane that could not be harmed by hitting light poles (as the official story states).

If you truly were an NSA analyst, you would have done your research and realized how much time passed between the time the plane hit the pole, and when it impacted the building.

Why not do that, ULTIMA1.

Check the distance the pole was from the building...

Now, calculate the plane speed...

Using simple math, calculate the time between hitting pole and the building.

Originally posted by gavron
If you truly were an NSA analyst, you would have done your research and realized how much time passed between the time the plane hit the pole, and when it impacted the building.

Now, calculate the plane speed...

Using simple math, calculate the time between hitting pole and the building.

What is the purpose of this post? What is it supposed to achieve? Why would anyone need to calculate the alleged speed of the alleged plane, when that information should be in the alleged FDR that was allegedly found?

Seriously, Gavron, what's your point? This thread is about Flight 93 and you're dragging Flight AA77s speed into it?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Seriously, Gavron, what's your point? This thread is about Flight 93 and you're dragging Flight AA77s speed into it?

Don't throw a tizzy, tezza, just scroll up. The post I was replying to was mentioning AA77. If you want to complain, then you might start a few posts higher.

edit: oops, said threads when I meant posts. Need more caffeine I s'pose.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
Check the distance the pole was from the building...

Since you seem to have a problem reading i will post it again.

So i guess AA77 was a miracle plane that could not be harmed by hitting light poles (as the official story states).

Please show me photos and videos of wing debris at the light poles. OH THTS RIGHT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THER ARE NO PHOTOS OR VIDEOS OF WING DEBRIS OR PLANE DEBRIS AT THE LIGHT POLES.

Just to go one further: there is no evidence of any debris from Flight 77 anywhere immediately before the wall of the Pentagon. All we have before then are 5 downed light poles and a bizarre story involving a cab.

This is relevant to Flight 93 because if the Pentagon was BS (and remember - the Pentagon is a 100% government owned/controlled building) then the events surrounding Flight 93 are also complete BS.

Why? It's quite simple - it shows foreknowledge and planning pre-9/11 that has nothing to do with 19 crazed hijackers with box cutters and a couple of airliners.

There was an exec jet on approach that hit a light pole - it crashed just 100 ft after that. It was going slow, too.

According to the taxi driver, Flight 77 was flying soooo sllloowwwlllyyyy that he had time to get out of his cab, ask someone for help, take the light pole out the cab and lay it on the floor, note the other guy disappear and get behind his cab, all before the jet hit and he hears the explosion of impact.

The guy must be Superman because at the FDR alleged speeds, there was just 1.3 seconds flight time between the cab and the Pentagon. Hardly time to realize what just occurred, never mind all the above.

Further, this guys testimony is "official".

If the Pentagon doesn't add up, why the hell should the rest of it?

Flight 93 is the easiest to fabricate due to the complete lack of any evidence. This is what makes the official story surrounding Flight 93 so unbelievable.

TYs latest thread on the NIST report shows further evidence of cover-up, because the explanations and the alleged physics as described by NIST don't at all match the video records.

They made 9/11 so complex that it is full of contradictions and holes. The truth can't contradict itself, unless it is fabricated.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

For some reason, a thread title that is supposed to focus on one event, United Airlines 93 on September 11, 2001, has stuff about American Airlines 77.

Wings may or may not have been 'sheared' off....an 'exec jet' crashed??? What is that supposed to mean?

UAL93 was subjected to extreme G-forces prior to impact with the ground. I've tried to equate, using a real example of the effects of G-forces in flight, by bringing up American Airlines (987??), from November 2001. Maybe I deflected the direction here by mentioning it, and it started the diversion to AAL 77....

Let's look at UAL 585, in Colorado Springs, CO....forget the year....and there was USAir in Pittsburgh.....both virtually straight-in crashes, although not at the speeds seen in UAL 93.

I'm writing this on the fly, "off-the-cuff" so to speak, and haven't pulled up all of the NTSB data on those.....but, I remember them since I was in the industry....all pilots pay attention when airplanes crash.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Wings may or may not have been 'sheared' off....an 'exec jet' crashed??? What is that supposed to mean?

So are you stating that the thin aluminum wings of an airliner would not get damaged from hitting 5 light poles at 500 MPH?

Let's look at UAL 585, in Colorado Springs, CO....forget the year....and there was USAir in Pittsburgh.....both virtually straight-in crashes, although not at the speeds seen in UAL 93.

Well lets look at Payne Stewarts Learjet that crashed virtually straight in at very high speed.

The crater was almost as big the crater that was suppoed to be from a 757 of Flight 93.

There were several parts that survived, so where is the parts form Flight 93 that would have survived?




[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I know, ULTIMA....I know.

Not every airliner that crashes displays the exact ame pattern....

At the risk of staying 'off-topic'.....the NW crash, in Detroit.....look, the crew were distracted, during their check-list....what was then called a 'Taxi Checklist'

The entire Industry decided, probably as a result of that accident, to revise Procedures.

We now use, after the push-back, and engines are started....the 'After-Start' checklist.....so the airplane is configured, for the take-off, for the Runway that is assumed to be the one for take-off.

This means, there is a 'Before-Start' checklist.....and this is what is colled for, and accomplished, BEFORE the push-back commences.

As I said, once the push-back is finished, and the Ground Crew are saluted, the 'After-Start' checklist is called for, by the Captain....and is accomplished.

There is, today....no 'Taxi" checklist, since that tended to be a distraction, when trying to comply with ATC instructions.

One caveat.....there is, today....a modified 'After-Start' checklist that, for certain airplanes, allows a taxi out with some engines not yet started, in order to save fuel.

The term is....'down to the line'.....meaning, the checklist is not yet comnplete. The airplane is configured for the Take-Off, of course....but not all engines are started yet....and trust me, we know when they aren't all started!!!!

SO....please.....the Northwest Airlines accident in Detroit has NOTHING to do with UAL 93.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not every airliner that crashes displays the exact ame pattern....
At the risk of staying 'off-topic'.....the NW crash, in Detroit.....look, the crew were distracted, during their check-list....what was then called a 'Taxi Checklist'

Nice way to aviod the fact that airliner wings would be damaged by hitting light poles.

So again where is the wing or airframe debris that would be at the light poles?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, last time I will be baited by you, on this thread.

IT IS about UAL93, not AAL 77. Period.

But, just so I won't be accused of avoiding a question.....

I still maintain that the NW flight in Detroit was doomed from the start of the take-off roll, since the Flaps/Slats were NOT set to the proper position for the Take-Off....this means, because of the airspeed of the airplane, and the amount of thrust available, and the low altitude above the ground....the airplane was doomed. The pilots used speeds that they THOUGHT were right, but they didn't set the Flaps/Slats because of a distraction during the taxi, when they were issued a runway change, by Ground Control.....and they then had to figure out which Taxiways were part of the 'Clearance' by G/C.....and how to get to the newly assigned Runway.

THEN....it's about looking up the NEW Runway, to see if it's longer or shorter than the one you were originally planning to use.....it's all in the Jeppesen.....but back then, pilots made their own judgements. It's far better now, when we get a runway change? We get new data, linked to the printer....but, wasn't the case, back then.

OK....so, the airplane was basically in a 'stalled' condition, the minute it left the ground. A crash was inevitable. The 'light pole' is a red herring.....who's to say the wing didn't break up upon first contact with the building??? We are talking about split seconds, here....and momentum, and Kinetic Energy......

And the NW was moving at, I' say as a guess....150-160 knots.

How fast was UAL 93?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not every airliner that crashes displays the exact ame pattern....
...

Nice way to aviod the fact that airliner wings would be damaged by hitting light poles.

So again where is the wing or airframe debris that would be at the light poles?

Must be like Karate! What you are saying is where is the debris from the hand breaking the concrete when the Karate hand smashes the stack! You know a solid understanding in physics would help you understand reality. (note; there was debris from the wing dropped near impact with at least one post) howthingswork.virginia.edu...

Flight 77's wing was going 534 mph hits a BREAKAWAY lamppost which would barely injure a VW going 45 mph and falls if you tap it wrong with a car, so it does not KILL PEOPLE. The planes wing which carries the weight of 100 TONS of plane by flying, taps a lamppost at 534 mph and you expect the wing holding up a 100 ton plane to be damaged and leave debris? A plane wing which actually holds up to 7 times the weight of the entire plane before snapping; you expect 77's weak wing to be damaged by a BREAKAWAY LAMPPOST? (note: there is debris from the wing left near impact of posts, at least some and photo is below)

A wing can hit stuff and still function to land miles away, let alone 1000 feet from impact at the Pentagon at 534 mph plus!

A low-flying United States military jet on a training flight over the craggy Dolomite mountains here cut the cable of a ski lift today, sending a cable car plunging 260 feet into a snowy meadow and killing everyone aboard.

The authorities said 20 bodies had been recovered from the wreckage on a slope just south of this Alpine hamlet.

The Marine Corps plane made an emergency landing safely, and none of the four crew members were injured, a Marine spokesman said. query.nytimes.com...

A wing slicing a cable is much harder than a wing knocking over a BREAKAWAY LAMPPOST.

Part of 77's wing tip knocked off by the VDOT Camera mast.

Wingtip knocked off by post. But as for knocking down BREAKAWAY LAMPPOST and expecting debris from the plane, there was debris from the wing. Would a light weight post stop 77 from impacting the Pentagon, physics takes over and 77 still hits the Pentagon. Lampposts do not stop the energy or momentum of over 100 tons going 534 mph.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut
Flight 77's wing was going 534 mph hits a BREAKAWAY lamppost which would barely injure a VW going 45 mph

Thanks for your completely uninformed post.

Clearly, you haven't driven a VW Beetle for any length of time, nor smashed while driving one of them.

A VW Beetle travelling at 45 mph, hitting one of those light posts would suffer enough damage to probably write the car off. It would barely be economically viable to fix the damage to front end.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well lets look at Payne Stewarts Learjet that crashed virtually straight in at very high speed.

The crater was almost as big the crater that was suppoed to be from a 757 of Flight 93.

There were several parts that survived, so where is the parts form Flight 93 that would have survived?
[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Yep, it looks like Payne Stewarts plane looks just like Flight 93, hard to imagine there was once a beautiful plane made up of parts smashed beyond recognition. And I see what you mean, both 93, the top photo, and Stewart's plane bottom photo, look like junk metal! Good job showing us high speed impacts look the same.

The crater of flight 93 was exactly the length of the wing span of Flight 93 and the size a 600 mph impact would be for a 100 ton plus aircraft; and Stewart's impact was just the right size for his aircraft. You made up out of the blue the false statement you made. For you to make up false information without proof is not good. The two impacts were how they should be for each aircraft, your statement is not supported with fact and hard evidence, it is based on hearsay and opinions.

Parts that survived and were from Flight 93.
The skin from 93, window frame from 93, and the FDR with all 25 previous flight hours of data!

And an engine from 93, buried in the ground, and the below, Stewart's plane that looks just like 93 debris, junk metal!

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by beachnut
Flight 77's wing was going 534 mph hits a BREAKAWAY lamppost which would barely injure a VW going 45 mph

Thanks for your completely uninformed post.

Clearly, you haven't driven a VW Beetle for any length of time, nor smashed while driving one of them.

A VW Beetle travelling at 45 mph, hitting one of those light posts would suffer enough damage to probably write the car off. It would barely be economically viable to fix the damage to front end.

You are saying a BREAKAWAY LAMPPOST is designed to kill the people in a VW? Oh, you mean I should have said not injure the people in the VW. I think a pole hit a car and failed to do major damage due to the BREAKAWAY and light weight of the pole. Now if the taxi driver was in the passenger seat, he may have been killed. But the lampposts are not suppose to do major damage to cars, and a speeding aircraft would simple knock them down.

My post stands on facts. Your post?

Wing can function after it hits objects at high speed. There was debris knocked off the wing. More facts.

I guess you are right, the car may be injured, they make the breakaway bases so there is less chance of major damage and injury to people.

Good thing the lampposts were breakaway design, old style post may of created damage to surrounding cars and caused major injuries to people. Good work safety engineers.

Breakaway base test! Yep, these cars are totaled by the poles; or are they?

reply to post by IvanZana



I can see that no one has been able to logically prove a plane crashed in Shankville on 911.

There are 5 posters here that are so fanatically supportive of the official story they try to kill threads while failing to prove a plane crashed in Shanksville on 911 when all the evidence proves one didn't. The debunkers take on 911 is Kooky. Now with that Aside.......

Here are some pictures of Missile craters and the Shanksville crater.



















THis last one is of the Lockerbie Crash. The plane was blown up in the air by a bomb and fell to the earth in pieces. The fueselage left a dugged out a long and deep crater.
No Boeing 757 crashed in Shansville as most experts will agree. Anyone who disagrees should research a little more and to be careful not to fall prey to the regurgitated material genreted by some posts that try to brainwash you that one did. Buit most of us know this.

p.s

Happy b-day Boris.

Happy Researching.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana

You failed to present evidence. I know this is true because you have not earned a Pulitzer Prize for your massive lack of evidence based conclusion. Here are parts of Flight 93 and you have not been able to prove them to be otherwise.
Here is a the skin from Flight 93, a fact you can't prove is wrong due to lack of evidence.
Here is the FDR from Flight 93, with the data supporting the high speed impact, at 600 mph.
Here are windows in the skin of Flight 93, the exact dimension of the 757. And you can't prove they are not! An engine from Flight 93 found in the crater. A crater with the exact length of the wing span of a 757.
Facts beat hearsay. You post hearsay and your opinion based on nothing. I post the evidence and use my years as a trained aircraft accident investigator to make logical conclusions.

If only you had some evidence and the backing of a trained aircraft accident investigator. If your ideas were true and backed with real evidence you would be famous and be a Pulitzer Prize winner. Or is your Prize pending?

The reason no news agencies are believing your ideas are due to the fact there is proof the debris field is from Flight 93 and it is recorded by news agencies which back up the FBI photos. Those sneaky news helicopters were all over the crash scene on 9/11 and have confirmation of these photos which is debris from 93.

Based on expert analysis by a trained aircraft accident investigator these photos are typical of a high speed aircraft impact. All the photos. If you wish to check this, go get a few independent expert in aircraft accident investigation to weigh in.