KT Challenge@Shanksville

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:39 AM
Nice investigative minds at work.
Do you people, ever, read other's links to threads in this forum?

I gave you an extensive thread where I believe to have provided enough evidence that the whole nose-dive at circa 512 miles per hour from considerable height is a fabrication.


Multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane at low altitude arriving above the scrap yard at about 12 meter high, they heard and saw it coming during about 12 seconds from the direction of the junction at Viola's house, flying at low altitude. Than it went down about 300 meter further south.
That seems to be a totally different plane than the officially presented one, which is said to have flown much higher, about 1300 meters above Viola's house, and above the scrapyard. See the above 2 pages of my linked thread for proof of that.

Viola Saylor, her sister, and multiple other witnesses at the junction 50 meters from Viola's house, all saw that same plane at a height of no more than 30 meters high, flying much slower than the official report wants us to believe.

SwampFox, can you provide me USGS reports from 1994 or up till 2001, of the consistency of that broad strip of original soil laying in between that tree-line dirt road and the former edge of the coal excavation?

Can you prove that that broad strip was also filled up with soft formerly excavated material?

But let's get real for a moment, does any one still believe that that 2001 scar was situated in former excavated soil?

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:53 PM
It always pays off to read the offered links.

Title: "Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, and this is the biggest 9/11 cover up of them all."
In this thread at page 3, I found a damn interesting post by Valhall :

I'll take out the parts which interested me the most :

9:34 an Air National Guard C130H takes off in the Washington DC area (from what specific location is unknown). This ANG plane is allowed to take-off 8 minutes after the FAA ground stop was called. And, yes, I understand that we are talking about FAA and military differences - I'm sure there's some extremely critical reason a cargo plane needed to take off allegedly to do nothing more than fly to Minnesota - in the middle of all hell breaking loose.

Reagan airport contacts the C130H and requests that he try to locate the unidentified aircraft, identify it, and follow if possible. The C130H immediately spots the plane and identifies it as a 757 and attempts to follow it.

9:36 - FAA Cleveland advises FAA Herndon it is tracking 93 and asks if a fighter intercept has been requested.

9:37 - Flight 77 impacts Pentagon

9:38 - C130H notifies Reagan "that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir"

The C130H apparently is allowed to continue on its all critical mission to Minnesota.

9:42 - FAA Herndon instructs all airborne aircraft to land at nearest airport

The C130H continues on.

9:49 - Commander of NORAD directs all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed

The C130H continues on.

10:03 this is a lie in the official record - Flight 93 is recorded in the 911 report as crashing at 10:03. Two separate groups of seismologists (the second being commissioned by the Pentagon) firmly established the impact of Flight 93 at 10:06:05.
[See Valhall next post: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

10:05 - our ever-present C130H informs FAA of visual black smoke from impact site

Stepping away from the report...

Of the numerous people onboard at the "time of the crash" who were talking to either loved ones, authorities, or airline dispatchers - NOT ONE SINGLE CELL PHONE emitted a sound associated with the phone being involved in a crash. All cell phones JUST WENT DEAD. In fact, there were two different people (one being a Verizon operator) who stayed on the line for over 30 minutes waiting for the person to return. THE LINES NEVER DISCONNECTED...they just went silent.

The voice recorder does not contain the sound of a crash. It just went dead. All phones and the voice recorder just went dead.

The plane was flying UPSIDE DOWN when it flew about 50 feet over the head of one man working in salvage yard. He is the only person to see the plane go into the field.

Upon impact (which was in an open field) the plane did not cause any infrastructure damage, it did not cause damage to any highline wires, nothing...but at almost the same instance as the impact (which could be heard in the nearby town) THE ENTIRE POWERGRID, and LAND LINE PHONE SYSTEM...WENT DEAD.

On September 12, 2001 Ashcroft stood before the American people and stated that what was going to be the most exhaustive, extensive and critical investigation in U.S. history into the 9/11 events had initiated.

BUT THE C130H was unknown to ANYONE in the 9/11 investigation for weeks. The C130H had filed a report, but the Pentagon, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General - no one knew that the C130H had been involved in the events of 9/11.



To this day no information has been released on how many crew members were on board the C130, what their mission was, any names...nothing. It is the single most "black" spot on the 9/11 commission report that I have found so far. And it is uninvestigable the way it stands now. Unless some one forces more information out on this craft - the secret of what happened to Flight 93 may never be known.

I'd like to introduce you to the EC-130H - known as the Compass Call.


The EC-130H Compass Call is an airborne tactical weapon system using a modified version of the C-130 Hercules airframe. The system prevents successful enemy command and control communications and limits adversary coordination essential for enemy force management. The system also supports tactical air operations, and provides conventional and special operations support to friendly forces.

That's all I'll say on that for now.

I think the C-130H was an EC-130H. I think the EC-130H either:

* jammed all electronic systems on the plane which rendered it silent, and then it was taken down by another craft (I'm not real happy with this theory


* took the plane down itself with its electronic jamming system. And I think that's what took out the neighboring power grid and land lines. (This is what I personally believe.)

I'll post more later.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]

And then her next post :

Oops...I missed something. REALLY IMPORTANT.

When the family members were allowed to listen to the voice recorder at 10:03 the voice recorder "just went silent". Since it is established that the impact time was 10:06:05 this means that 3 minutes of this tape are missing. But the interesting point here is that Jere Longman, in his book "Among the Heroes" states the tape was a 34 minute long [continuous loop analog] tape...with only 31 minutes recorded on it.

That can't be so. Because an analog continuous voice recorder will always have the full recordiing time on it...it just starts recording over itself after it has reached the end of the loop. It doesn't "erase and start over" it just records over.

There are 3 minutes missing from the voice recorder...that just went silent.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]

I think this is the most compelling part of the af.mil link,

The Compass Call integrates into tactical air operations at any level. The versatile and flexible nature of the aircraft and its crew enable the power of electronic combat to be brought to bear in virtually any combat situation.

Airborne electronic warfare consists of three major players forming a triad of capability. The EC-130H Compass Call, EA-6B Prowler and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons suppress enemy air defenses while jamming communications, radar and command and control targets. Compass Call is in demand with all unified commands, and therefore, subject to worldwide deployment in support of operations on very short notice.

The Compass Call has demonstrated a powerful effect on enemy command and control networks in multiple military operations including Kosovo, Haiti, Panama, Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan.

All Compass Call aircraft are assigned to Air Combat Command. The EC-130H Compass Call is operated by the 55 Electronic Combat Group (41st, 42nd and 43d Electronic Combat Squadrons) at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

Although located at Davis-Monthan, the group reports to the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB, Neb.

Well well, the same Offutt AirForceBase, Nebraska where GW Bush showed up, Warren Buffet and friends showed up and who knows how many further players on 9/11.

We know by now the names of the pilot and the co-pilot of that plane, and where it took off from, after it landed there, after turning back from an unknown mission in the Careibic.
We also know now from officially released reports and from interviews with these two pilots that their home base was in Minnesota or Montana. They said.....
It would be quite simple for people in the military at high enough places to hide the real operational capability of that C-130H.

Most compelling coincidences in the story of the C-130 has always been to me the incredible low possibility in real life that this fairly slow plane, compared to a 757 at cruising speed, was able to turn up and be witnessed by several people at TWO of the 9/11 crash sites.
The Pentagon and Shanksville.
And both after the total nationwide ground stop was instructed.
And I would like to know, just as Valhall does, what the hell the importance of that flight was, to let it go airborne after the first ever nationwide ground stop in US and world history.
As the pilots reported to the interviewers, they were ""just returning to home base"".

Yup, sure, now I DO understand!
Ofcourse this was a case of national importance, to get these airmen back home, in the middle of the gravest attack on US soil ever.

And you should realize by now, that the possibility of this same C-130 plane cruising around the other two crash sites in Manhattan is quite reasonable to begin to believe also.

[edit on 9/4/09 by LaBTop]

[edit on 9/4/09 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

And the paranoia builds. There wasnt anything mysterious about that Minnesota Air Guard C-130 nor about its crew. From first hand knowledge, I can tell you it was a plain jane C-130. My reserve unit was right there on the same flightline as that unit and we all knew the plane and the crew that was onboard it that day.

And the ground stop was for civilian (or non-military) aircraft only.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

LaBTop, the C-130 was taxiing out at Andrews Air Force Base for departure at 9:27a.m.

In order for your theory to work, it would have had to flown from Manhattan to Washington, DC and land at Andrews Air Force Base (without communicating with the air traffic control tower) in 24 minutes.

If you want to know why the C-130 was flying around after ATC zero was declared, go to the 23 minute mark in the audio below and listen through to the end.


posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:10 PM
Boone 870, thank you for that link.
Yes, a bit tight scheme to have been around Manhattan just before.
Of course there were/are more of these jamming plane's around, who knows, perhaps another one was used at the Twin Towers. They don't need to be very close to be able to take over a plane's steering.

This is the C-130 pilot's or co-pilot's justification as told to the flight controller on the ground, as you can hear around the 36:15 mark, where the controller is telling another one that his Medicare flight is not allowed to fly at that moment, and then a bit later this controller showed clearly that he was quite surprised that Gopher06 was still in the air, so late after total grounding of all aircraft was ordered :

-snip- "We put everybody on the ground; I got in the air right now the military plane."

silence for some time, then:

" Gopher06, I pry (probably) shouldn't ask you, you pry shouldn't answer, but what are you doing in the air right now? "
" Well sir, nobody has asked us to land at this time, so if that's what we need to do, we're prepared to do it. "
" Nobody has told me actually to put you on the ground, I put everybody else on the ground, just curious and I knew I shouldn't ask that. "

That's clearly a question from a very confused professional, getting over his normally strong resistance to ask such things from a military pilot, but in this exceptional case, after an exceptional measure taken, he could not resist to try to silence his curiosity.

And he clearly got no real reason back why this plane was still in the air.

In other words, what was so important about this specific flight to get clearance to take off at such a crucial time during flight 77's approach to Washington and into the Pentagon, and keep flying around all that time and afterwards during flight 93's sad end.

I would guess that the order for take off was given by someone who knew that this plane had been doing perhaps some extraordinary work in the Caribbean, and he thought either the plane's (secret?) capacity would be handy to have around.
Or he bluntly said, was in on it.

This is however just a small diversion from the path of the opening post, so let's get back to that line of thought.

Was it the plane, Viola Saylor and the other witnesses saw flying near the ground that crashed in that crater, or was it another one, as described by data from the NTSB report about the data from the flight 93 flight recorder.
Which NTSB reported plane flew far higher than Viola and the others reported at their viewpoints.

Or was it all a farce, and was the crater shot in the ground by an armed drone, as seen by Susan McElwain? And were the remains planted at forehand? Or there were no remains at all, and that was also a farce?
Alike the "Northwood" papers from the sixties, where the Military brass proposed to fake an attack on an American passenger plane above Cuban airspace, which plane would however have been empty, and the real filled up with real passengers plane would have been ducked under the radar and landed at a military airfield and unloaded it's passengers who would all be having faked names and lifes.

When will we ever know?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:32 AM
There's another thing nagging at my mind.
The fact that the CELL tower was "taken out" around the time of impact.
See Valhall's and JIMC5499's next post on page 4 of that old thread :

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by JIMC5499

4. The EC-130H if it was used wasn't trying to jam the cell phones, it was jamming the CELL itself. The cell is the receiver that the phones transmit too. My brother-in-law's brother lives near Shanksville (he and his family couldn't go home for almost a week after the crash) he told me that the cell there had to be replaced before he could use his cell phone. I can buy the use of the EC-130H, at the time it was thought that there might be more than just four aircraft taken by the terrorists. Preventing any communication between the aircraft or people on the ground would be a smart move. EC-130H jammers are area of effect devices they don't jam selectively, they can also throw out enough power to fry receivers.

Thanks for this
. You understand that the EC-130H has more capabilities than is publicly stated, right? It has classified capabilities, and also has had airframe kills in combat (according to certain sources). So we're talking about more than jamming.

Learning now that not only was the power grid and the land lines smacked down by whatever happened at approximately 10:03 to 10:06, but the cell receiver at the tower was taken out (permanently!)...just leads me to believe the EC-130H was involved, and its "classified mission" was to end up in Minnesota - that is after completing it's classified mission. And I believe that mission was accomplished near Shanksville, PA.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]

And SwampFox, during all of human history, the military might rests for one huge part on it's technical resources, but for a big chunk also on it's deceptive powers, those made it possible to influence the thoughts of its adversaries.

In the case of 9/11, it is my opinion that WE, the citizens, were their adversary.
WE had to be fooled AGAIN.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:49 AM

Rick Yock, a bartender at the Indian Lake Resort, located two miles from the crash, was sitting at home, watching television with his mother. Planes had hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and now he felt a shivering explosion in rural Pennsylvania. The power went off in his house, the lights, the television. The phones went dead. He thought the whole country was under attack. - Source, a book by Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, pg 212.

The above was one of the sources which revealed a total power grid outage at the moment of an explosion, heard by this bartender.

This is the info known by Historycommons.org about the C-130 pilot:

10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Pilot Asked to Verify Flight 93 Crash

Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien standing in front of a C-130. [Source: CBC]

Cleveland Center air traffic controller Stacey Taylor has asked a nearby C-130 pilot to look at Flight 93’s last position and see if he can find anything. Remarkably, this C-130 pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, is the same pilot who was asked by air traffic control to observe Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon earlier on (see 9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001). O’Brien tells Taylor that he saw smoke from the crash shortly after the hijacked plane went down. [Guardian, 10/17/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] An article in the London Independent will later suggest that Flight 93 might have been brought down by the US military using “electronic warfare applications” that can disrupt the mechanisms of an airplane (See August 13, 2002); it will refer to this C-130, since “in 1995 the Air Force installed ‘electronic suites’ in at least 28 of its C-130s—capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.” [Independent, 8/13/2002]

Entity Tags: Stacey Taylor, Cleveland flight control, Steve O’Brien

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

It reads as if not only EC-130's had jamming capabilities, but I could be wrong, it could also mean that normal C-130's were fitted with new applications, and thus became known as EC-130's.

Historycommons.org profile: Cleveland flight control :

In this profile you can read about the Warren Buffet owned business jet that followed flight 93 for a substantial period of time.

And find also lots of other interesting snippets regarding flight 93.

Historycommons.org profile: Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor :

About seven months later, Anthony Kuczynski tells the University of St. Thomas’s weekly newspaper that he had flown toward Pittsburgh alongside two F-16s. He said he was piloting an E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, with advanced radar and surveillance equipment that could be used to direct fighters to their targets. He was just about to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed. He says, “I was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner.” (E-3s are unarmed, so, if this account is accurate, the order presumably applied to the fighters Kuczynski was accompanying.) [St. Thomas Aquin, 4/12/2002; US Air Force, 5/2006]


Five years after the attacks, Bill Keaton, a Cleveland flight controller who tracked Flight 93 as it flew eastward (see (9:41 a.m.-10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001), is asked whether there were fighters in the vicinity when it crashed. He replies, “[T]hat goes beyond the scope of what I can comment on.” (Flight controllers reportedly can lose their security clearances if they discuss the movements of military aircraft.) [Cleveland Free Times, 9/6/2006]

The plot is thickening, or is it sickening?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499

If I had to bet on it I would say that the mysterious white plane that you are looking for might be a Navy E-2C Hawkeye. The Hawkeye is a small AWAC aircraft. The tail of this plane consists of two vertical stabilizers at each end of the horizontal stabilizer. It also has two more vertical stabilizers mounted inboard on the horizontal stabilizer. The inboard vertical stabilizers may not be visible to someone on the ground. I have heard that the Hawkeye may have some jamming capability but I can’t confirm that. Hawkeyes are usually painted white and there are some based both at Pax River, Maryland and at Oceania, Virginia.

I don't think Jim did understand at the time he wrote this, that we were talking about a drone-like little white plane sighted by Susan McElwain, see the two videos with her in it shot by Domenick DiMaggio and friends, I posted about in the first pages of this thread.
She specifically describes it as not bigger than her own van, the one she was driving in at the time she saw that drone hopping over the tree line in front of her, and then seconds later the explosion she heard and the smoke billowing above that same tree line.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:33 AM
In this link, there are quite a lot of numbers, heights and planes named:

FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said Saturday that a civilian business jet flying to Johnstown -- about 20 miles north of the crash site -- was within 20 miles of the low-flying airliner, but at an altitude of 37,000 feet.
Crowley also said there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away flying at 24,000 feet when Flight 93 crashed. The military plane had no weapons on board. Crowley said he did not know where it was coming from or going, but said its crew reported seeing smoke or dust near the crash site.
Recovery teams found the plane's cockpit voice recorder just after sundown Friday.
The plane's flight data recorder was discovered Thursday.

Btw, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley was also involved in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. I have posted extensively on that in this forum and on another site I linked to. Search and you will find.

I now remember clearly what I heard in the audio link provided by Boone 870, that the flight controller clearly stated to a colleague that he had ordered already all planes in the vicinity down, except JUST ONE, the military plane.

First a small Cessna within 3 miles of 93, which pilot was asked if he could see the plane to verify location, and then was 'immediately' told to leave the area.

So, how come the flight controller didn't see that business plane flying to Johnstown Airport on his radar scope?
And neither the Falcon business jet reported by news media, to be found on the History Commons pages I linked to? That's the Warren Buffet owned business jet that followed flight 93 for a substantial period of time.
As you can read in those pages, there clearly were TWO business jets around flight 93.

And what about the E-3 Sentry AWACS plane alongside two F-16s in hot pursuit of flight 93.

And the little white drone with van-like proportions reported by Susan McElwain? (Too low probably, to have been shown on FAA radar.)

It seemed to have been quite busy above Lambertsville and Shanksville, while we only hear ONE military plane mentioned in that audio snippet from the FAA flight controller.

May I repeat a snippet of info I provided already at this crucial moment in my thought process :

Airborne electronic warfare consists of three major players forming a triad of capability. The EC-130H Compass Call, EA-6B Prowler and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons suppress enemy air defenses while jamming communications, radar and command and control targets. Compass Call is in demand with all unified commands, and therefore, subject to worldwide deployment in support of operations on very short notice.

1. That's a C-130 which could have easily been a disguised EC-130H, you can only spot the difference if you are an experienced plane spotter, and then from nearby. It has two small pod like antennas at each side under the tail wings, and a few short antennas sticking out of it at various places. I have posted big photos of the EC-130H somewhere in this forum, use the Search function.

2. That's a white Prowler which could have easily been the white plane reported by Viola Saylor, after she saw the supposed flight 93 nearly hit her Oak tree in her back garden, passing over her house to the south.

3. That's two reported F-16 Fighting Falcons, which make the picture complete.

There was an EMP effect registered at the moments around the crash of flight 93, cell tower equipment had to be replaced weeks later, the electrical power grid was outed and land-line phones went dead.

Anybody has another explanation than an EMP effect except the lame excuse of overloaded telephone grids during 9/11.(What about the Cell tower equipment destroyed? And the electricity?)

Regarding the electricity :
regarding the outed cell tower :

[edit on 12/4/09 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:39 AM
www.post-gazette.com... :

Authorities weren't ready yesterday to pronounce the crash a result of terrorism. But a telling detail came minutes before the plane went down when dispatchers at the Westmoreland County Emergency Operations Center intercepted a frantic cell phone call made to 911 by a passenger aboard the doomed flight.

"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" the man told dispatchers in a quivering voice during a conversation that lasted about one minute.

"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor.

"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where.

"And then we lost contact with him."

As far as I know, there are no windows in that plane's toilets/bathrooms, thus, he must have heard some explosion and seen the white smoke before he locked himself up and phoned 911 at 9:58 and later.
If it was a rocket that hit 93, it must thus have been fired before 09:58.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Valhall, your statement about the EC-130 got me thinking. I think that having an EC-130 in the area, manned and ready to take off at the exact time necessary to intercept Flight 93 over an open countryside is a little bit too much of a coincidence. However an EA-6B Prowler has the capability to do pretty much the same thing that you have the EC-130 doing.

Now for the interesting part. There are TWO EA-6Bs based at the Naval Air Test Center at Pax River, Maryland and guess what else? They are both painted WHITE!

An EA-6B would have the speed necessary to intercept Flight 93 and its jamming would be capable of causing the blackout and communications disruptions.

As I have said before, I still think Lt.Col. Steve O'Brien was probably the necessary official witness needed for the planned media bombardment.
Jim's idea of a EA-6B Prowler is a very logical conclusion, however with no chance of ever proving it. If it was around, its crew will never talk.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:32 AM
www.abovetopsecret.com... :

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by esdad71
The only reason I would disagree with the EMP weapon, is the Cessna and the business jet in the area. I know most military craft are engineered for EMP but are civilian craft? This would be interesting to investigate those 2 aircraft and service logs. Would they have been in the range?

Funny thing is that aircraft are not really affected by EMP. What EMP does is to put out energy on many different frequencies. An antennae works by pulling in energy of a specific frequency, usually radio or television waves containing the desired signal. The waves usually generate energy in the millivolt and milliamp range that the device uses. When EMP hits those millivolt and milliamp signals become signals in the volt and amp range. This overloads the device. It is this overload that causes the damage. Aircraft are usually not damaged because they are not grounded. This is the same reason why planes are not usually damaged by lightning.
When I stated that I felt that the crash of Flight 93 may have been caused by jamming, I was referring to the loss of instruments such as the radar altimeter and navigation instruments. The reason that the bizjet and the Cessna were not affected is simple. The pilots of the bizjet are trained to fly without instruments and the Cessna probably didn't have instruments that were affected. I have simplified this explanation a lot but it is correct.

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by snafu7700
i'd have to disagree with that assertation. an EMP fries virtually all electronic equipment in close proximity to its blast. a cessna would not be affected, nor would an older model private jet. however, at this point in time about 90 percent of commercial aviation is fly-by-wire. an EMP would make your typical airliner completely uncontrollable, to say nothing of the effects on the modern "glass" cockpits.

If this was EMP from a nuclear blast I'd agree with you snafu, but this was directed jamming which is a whole different issue. The bizjet and the Cessna would have caught the fringes of the jamming signal not the whole jolt. I don't think that they would have had any permenant damage.

So if those power outages were caused by a jamming military plane, why did they feel the need to suddenly silence the whole area?
As stated above by JIMC5499, they only needed to attack the 757 specifically, and no ground based facilities.
Did they try to close off the immediate area from the rest of the world for a few weeks ( cell tower got repaired 2 weeks later), so they had better means to mold the prepared media story?

[edit on 12/4/09 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:33 AM
Thanks to Killtown for these two photos :

Did "it" hit the excavated and refilled area, or not?
You decide.

And what if what you see there was that round hole you saw already there in the 1994 USGS photos I provided, and what if that same hole was filled up with coal, and then that white drone fired a rocket into that pit, or slammed itself into it, loaded with explosives?
That would burn like a stove. Just as it seems to do so.
No deep-black jet fuel fire, with a kilometer high black cloud emanating from it.

Original David Hess photo, he was head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. It was taken two weeks after the crash :

Just a few meters more and "it" would have hit that dirt road.
The refilled excavation lays many meters lower in the photo.
You can see the last end of the original ditch from that 1994 USGS photo in the bottom right corner.

[edit on 12/4/09 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

An important update on those two first photo's in my last post above.

They are from a thread at Democratic Underground started by Killtown, which I did not read thoroughly enough at first to understand that the first two photo's were from a movie :

These first 2 photo's above are NOT, I repeat NOT from the original flight 93 crash site as I thought at first.

I got doubtfull after I could not find the dusty dirt road in between the grass and the tree line.
After looking at the sources for both photo's, I found them to be coming from this website, AE-TV, as photo-ops 14 and 15 from a MOVIE about flight 93 :


This however still does not change my mind that the point of impact is situated far beside the original boundary from the huge former coal strip-mine excavation. See the two light blue boundary lines in this photo by the USGS taken in 1994 :

And that the impact crater was not in refilled soil inside that huge deep basin. See this original crash site photo from the impact crater :

top topics
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in