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

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by realshanti

 

Real Shanti,

Was it hard to cherry pic that photo? Here is the rest of them.

These next pictures are of planes that crashed similar to flight 93. As you can se the shanksville crater was not caused by Flight 93.

Flight 427








Flight 498




Flight 585\



Flight 93


As you can see.... No plane crashed in Shanksville. See original post. Flight 93 did not cause that small crater.

This is easy.


If i could star and flag this post i would.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by IvanZana]

As usual Ivan... you FAILED to post the stats of the crashes.


Why dont you do that? Instead you show ANY plane crash.

this is typical from you.

reply to post by IvanZana


actually I did see all those pics when i was looking on the net for a nose down crash at high speed but only one seemed like a good comparison to flight 93....I think its important to choose a comparable crash for contrast and comparison, especially for us non techies...thats why I asked specifically for a similar style crash...which was provided - so thats not cherry picking...he was just being courteous and providing the info I asked for...

Originally posted by IvanZana

However, there are a few problems with this scene:

3) are they really using an excavator to dig out a hole that is in theory packed with human remains? Shouldn't they be doing this excavation a little more delicately?

Don't forget that engine fits in the excavator bucket. They just lowered it down with with the smashed engine piece in it to plant for the photo.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by realshanti

 

Here is another crash:

An RAF Canberra bomber, which crashed at a steep angle into a farm field at about 450-500 knots in 1952. "Such was the complete destruction of the aircraft that it made the job of the Accidents Investigation Branch a difficult one and all the wreckage recovered was taken back to Samlesbury and laid out in a Hanger for detailed inspection.

web.ukonline.co.uk...

Why does the crash scene look so much different?

reply to post by Kulturcidist


No, it wouldn't. In this day and age, it's completely plausible.

And, yes, things do leak, but in the case of the mysteries surrounding 9/11 (as with soooo many other power plays), each time someone with knowledge comes forward, they are vilified or called a nut. So, even if you did have some insider knowledge, would you come forward and put yourself, your family and colleagues at risk only to be called a freak, unpatriotic, a liar and a nut job - or possibly lose your life like all those folks who tried to speak up about JFK?

Evey time someone does have the courage to step forward and ask questions or add information, their reputation is dragged through the mud. It's happened a million times - that's how the control works. Then, people like you start actually believing that there isn't anybody willing to talk. Well, there are - and have been - it's just that no one wants to listen and accept the ugly reality of our world and the struggle for power and domination.

reply to post by im_being_censored


Actually I'm not sure what you mean - the first photo is the debris reassembled iin the hangar and the other shots are from such a great height its hard to tell what the differences are...could you clarify your question? thanks...

Actually Flight 800 is close to the Flight 93 crash.

Flight 800 hit the water straight in at high speed (engines were on). The plane shattered in millions of pieces and it took the Navy several months to find pieces, but they found enough pieces to do a reconstruction.

Why have we not seen a reconstruction of Flight 93?

ho there is no plane debree after this crash is beyond me.

reply to post by gate13


Gate,

There is debris from flight 93. Plenty of photographs. CT'ers just want more of it.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by gate13

 

Gate,

There is debris from flight 93. Plenty of photographs. CT'ers just want more of it.

There is a little debiris and they are not from flight 93.
Pleny of photographs? YES!!!! and each one of the show that no plane crashed in Shanksville on 911.

"CT'ers Just want more"

When you say "CT'ers" Im guessing you mean CRITICAL THINKERS, and YA, we have all proved that no plane crashed in Shanksville.

What you think we are all morons?

You wish.

reply to post by IvanZana


IvanZana, will you please address my earlier issues?

originally posted by me
How serious? Kind of like hanging serious?

Please answer the questions because I would like to know if I need to call my NEW WORLD ORDER handler so that I can go into hiding.

Seriously, I have already been in touch with the New World Order Department of Operative Relocation.




Is this what you expected the crash scene of Flight 93 to look like?

Here is my own theory on what happened with Flight 93.

The BEST evidence, is for it breaking up mid-air. They found the engine miles away -- there is no way it can bounce, and the idea that someone struggling with the control stick is going to tear things of with G-forces -- that's due to people watching too many movies.

There were various reports of a white plane, in that area and over the WTC. CNN in fact, had a report that a plane much like a newer version of the AWAKS was in the air -- I've lost the article but you should be able to google for it. Anti-truthers like to point to people making theories about remote-control planes or missiles as a way to discredit ALL questions. I think these were actual planes -- but I don't think its a good idea to speculate -- it is not the job of the armchair public to be able to figure out what happened, when the crime scene was destroyed. The OFFICIAL report, points to the steel from the WTC not being tested independently, and quickly sent to recycling in China. In any normal case, this looks like a coverup.

Please note, that the OFFICIAL government report about the JFK assassination points to a conspiracy. Common knowledge and TV, scoffs at anything but the single shooter theory -- but apparently, they haven't followed real court cases. Thom Hartmann, wrote a very good book on the topic. His conclusion was that the government conducted a coverup, because they were afraid the Cuban Mafia was involved and didn't want it to escalate to a war with Cuba and then onto something worse with the USSR. But, as these things go, a coverup of something innocent with good intentions, is SOP when you are running another, real OP underneath. The Bush family has a history of running more than one OP at a time, and they often throw in a "false lead." I don't want to make this too long, but I want the point made that they often throw a dummy in the mix for the press to go crazy on, and then a quick check shows that it is false. After that, constant ridicule of anyone against the official story.

Cheney was conducting 5 military drills related to terrorists attacks on that day. It is highly likely then, that there were Planes sent up to track the operations. Well-meaning government officials, thinking that the public goes crazy with ANY truth that is even slightly complicated, would probably have tried to cover up the "innocent" seeming drills going on. Perhaps the FAA security official who destroyed all the RADAR tapes that day was trying to fend off idle speculation about other planes -- maybe it was more sinister. It's just that there would be a lot of people at NORAD and the FAA who are truly professional and thoughtful people, and their reputations are being defended while hiding the real skunk in the works. If you are going to commit a big crime -- make it bigger and involve more innocent people -- they will help keep the truth hidden.

So, perhaps Flight 93 was shot down --- as we were expecting the other planes to be, but they find out later that it wasn't threatening an actual target, and in fact, it was taken over again by some heroic passengers. Rather than having people getting thrown over the coals for an accident in the heat of chaos, they help cover up the shoot down with an explosion on the ground and some debris. Not a very convincing job for a real FAA inspector, but good enough if you have inspectors helping and the media is as well.

That's a very plausible cover story. What really happened, however, is that along with the innocent cover-up, that seems to happen every time the military or government screws up anything, is that all attack aircraft available were sent on wild goose chases EXCEPT for the shoot-down of flight 93, which they had every reason to KNOW was taken control of by the passengers. Too many high level men happened to be in key positions on that day. The cameras on the WTC chose that day to quit working, for instance. Too many coincidences. The idea that planes off

The idea that planes off of transponder cannot be tracked is the biggest, bald faced lie I've ever heard. NORAD was designed to deal with an enemy that wouldn't be using transponders -- so if they can't track unmarked planes on a normal day, we need our money back, because our entire defense grid is a useless piece of junk. It is an overly expensive, corrupt and immoral project -- but they aren't a bunch of chumps either. Tony Soprano doesn't leave his back to the door.

And, if Dick Cheney innocently preoccupied our entire defense network in the NE just to run drills -- I'd say that he deserves a fair trial for being criminally negligent. Let's leave it at that.

>> But if everyone sorts this out with a thought towards misdirection, and how you would plan this to involve as many decent, innocent professionals as possible -- then it becomes a lot easier to figure out. Only about 25 people would need to be in on it -- maybe less. The rest are just dupes, doing their jobs.

reply to post by Boone 870


This seems like a straw-man argument. Nobody is expecting that with a crash headed straight for the ground, you would see big pieces.

I would, however, not expect mass to be missing, and the pieces would be embedded in the ground -- the engine not far away no matter how hard the impact.

There was a value-jet flight leaving Atlanta to Florida some years ago that went straight down into the everglades when some oxygen exchange devices caught fire. They recovered more than half of the airplane and it was all closely packed together. For some reason there was a media frenzy over that (Probably because it was a Union company -- and it was an outsourced company "Saber" that screwed it up) which resulted in Value Jet changing names.

Google; "flight 93 debris pattern" a good link; "Debris from the plane was spread out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma ..." www.oilempire.us/flight93.html

>> YOU CANNOT, have a plane smack into the ground and get parts 8 miles away. It broke up in the air. The impact crater has to be a fake, unless of course, it was split in two, and that impact was just a big chunk of it -- still, the only possible conclusion I can see reasonably, is it was destroyed BEFORE it hit the ground. I didn't bother watching these latest revelations, because to me, it is pretty basic and a foregone conclusion. Until I get any rational argument to change my mind, I consider that it was shot down. Innocently or with malice -- take your pick.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

The BEST evidence, is for it breaking up mid-air.

Neither the flight data recorder or eyewitnesses support this view.

They found the engine miles away -- there is no way it can bounce,

No they didn't.

And the idea that someone struggling with the control stick is going to tear things of with G-forces -- that's due to people watching too many movies.

Really? What caused the vertical fin to come off of United Airlines flight 587?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

The idea that planes off of transponder cannot be tracked is the biggest, bald faced lie I've ever heard.

I couldn't agree more! Please ask the truth movement to stop peddling this lie. The government never claimed that the four flights could not be tracked on radar.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

This seems like a straw-man argument. Nobody is expecting that with a crash headed straight for the ground, you would see big pieces.

You nailed it!

The author of this thread used that image over 100 times in another thread as an example of what the crash site of flight 93 should have looked like. I am asking him why he believes that an aircraft that impacted the ground at 580 mph should look any different than what it did.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

>> YOU CANNOT, have a plane smack into the ground and get parts 8 miles away. It broke up in the air. The impact crater has to be a fake, unless of course, it was split in two, and that impact was just a big chunk of it -- still, the only possible conclusion I can see reasonably, is it was destroyed BEFORE it hit the ground.

The eyewitness accounts do not support your theory, neither does the flight data recorder or the radar data.


Flight 93 approached from the northwest:

None of the debris was found before the impact crater.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to

IvanZana, will you please address my earlier issues?


Is this what you expected the crash scene of Flight 93 to look like?[ats]

No silly rabbit, that was a photo shopped picture of a plane that skidded, the tail was added to the shanksville crash photo for effect.

I dont see how this is going to change anyones minds when everyone know that no plane crashed in shanksville.


Why dont you start another silly thread Boone and call it " A PLANE CRASHED IN THIS TINY HOLE AND DIDNT BURN GRASS AND DISPLACE ENOUGH DIRT" and show this picture

See how many people laugh at you.


You couldnt convince anyone that plane crashed in Shanksville. You failed miserably in everyone of your posts to derail, beguile and obsefucate the truth in hopes to mislead honest good critical thinkers here on ATS and across the world that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville when all the evidence clearly proves one didnt.

You conspiracy theorists make me laugh with your vanishing, vapourizing plane arguements and wargames had nothing to do with the attacks of 911 rhetoric. Priceless.






[edit on 30-6-2008 by IvanZana]