Did a Military Plane, Drop Airplane Parts Over Shanksville?

At first this thread sounded ridiculous and I was about to leave it, but after reading more about the OP's theory it started to make sense. The only thing I have a problem with is the reason why would this be done.
The only thing I can think of is that they wanted or needed more "carnage" and decided that this would be a good way to do it. I still think (with what we have seen) that some type of new weapon was used to disintegrate the plane but the OP's idea doesn't sound that crazy after seeing what the government is capable of doing when they want something. Also remember that false flag attacks are real and are allowed, therefore making them legal and with no repercussions for those who ordered them or aided them in any type of way.

reply to post by Cassius666

I admit an 8 mile radius sounds rather big at first.

The 8 mile distance cited by the was because a MORON punched the locations into a mapping program which
gave THE ROAD DISTANCE if one was driving.

The debris found at Indian Lake was bits of paper and metallic foil insulation.

Now tell me does debris follow the road or the wind?

Wind was 10 mph from west-northwest , Indian Lake is to the east of the crash scene

Actual straight line dustance is about a mile,

The bits of debris were blown there by wind on that date.

Originally posted by thedman
The 8 mile distance cited by the was because a MORON punched the locations into a mapping program which
gave THE ROAD DISTANCE if one was driving.

The debris found at Indian Lake was bits of paper and metallic foil insulation.

You calling the FBI morons?

WTAE's Jim Parsons reported Wednesday that debris had been found miles off-site and removed by non-search party members. [Special Agent] Crowley confirmed that debris was found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, as well as Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene.
NTSB officials said the debris in New Baltimore is probably from the crash, according to Crowley.
The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the items are lightweight and can easily be carried by wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour heading to the southeast, where both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are located.

www.wtae.com...

reply to post by Elieser

Thank you for taking the time to read my theory, If the government was telling the truth then they wouldn’t go out of their way to put gage orders on FAA, United Airlines, American Airlines, and bury the real evidence such as the time change out parts that could identify the real plane that crashed.
Ten years later and pilots who are still requesting information under the FOIA about the Shanksville Pa crash are still being stonewalled by the FBI. United Airlines and American Airlines will not share the information about any of their air planes maintenance records, there is absolutely no reason to hide these documents from the public. What are people to believe when the government continues to hide the facts from the public and flat out refuses to answer simple question? For example why didn’t they investigate any of the four airplanes crashes? Four commercial airliners crash in one day and all related to a conspiracy of hijacking, yet there was no investigation? Why? I have heard all the excuses from the debunkers, why there wasn’t any investigation. The fact is if the events were all true then there is no reason to hide the truth from the public.

I don’t believe a plane crashed in Shankville PA I believe it landed in Ohio as the mayor claimed in a live televised conference 10 minutes before CNN announced the fake crash in Shanksville PA. The Mayor said that United 93 landed at Cincinnati Airport and there was a bomb threat on the plane. The plane was taxi to a private hanger and the passengers were unloaded and bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the plane for inspection. I am sure the Mayor checked his facts out before he made this announcement, these politicians do not like egg on their face when making such an announcement without checking the facts first. No proof of plane crash, no evidence= no plane crash .

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

Not likely. There were many local witnesses to the crash. There was an obvious fuel fire and many parts were buried in soft earth beneath the crater. A flyover doesn't explain this.

First of that gash has been there for more then 10 years already www.youtube.com...
Only difference now is that there is a hole in the middle of it but it conveniently leaves the profile of a plane,if you believe in cartoons like tom & jerry you will believe this crashsite.

Also looking at every vid from this crash from every news station or whoever else recorded and aired the footage everyone can see the absence of any wreckage of a crashed boeing.I think it was the cnbc part where they commented on the lack of debris and how strangley silent the site was,no burning fires could be seen or heard,no bodies or body parts anywhere.

a 200.000lb plane disapears under the ground during a crash?
Like the towers, this crash was the first of its kind in history and all on the same day.

Quite some time after the supposed crash 2 close up pictures are released ,1 of them being of a rusty old engine that is way to small.Rusted...

We are shown the crash site of flight 93 showing us a small hole in the ground with a few tiny and i must stress TINY plumes of smoke coming of of it and at the same time we have to believe that that was what made the WTC buildings collapse into itselfs (and WTC 7 as a result)


I am not intending to insult anyone here but anyone that believes the official explanations need to have their heads examined unless they have a IQ of less then 100.

reply to post by Rafe_

Also looking at every vid from this crash from every news station or whoever else recorded and aired the footage everyone can see the absence of any wreckage of a crashed boeing.I think it was the cnbc part where they commented on the lack of debris and how strangley silent the site was,no burning fires could be seen or heard,no bodies or body parts anywhere.

No wreckage huh....?

So what is this ...?



[img]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/P200062-1.jpg[/img




These are some of the larger pieces which survived the impact

Reason did not see any wreckage in many pictures was

1) Shots were taken at long range

2) Much of the debris was smashed into small fragmewnts - that is what happens when a plane hits ground at
575 mph



[img]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/debris_pc1.jpg[/img



Searchers filled 10 bins like this with debris - some 60 tons

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman
The 8 mile distance cited by the was because a MORON punched the locations into a mapping program which
gave THE ROAD DISTANCE if one was driving.

The debris found at Indian Lake was bits of paper and metallic foil insulation.

You calling the FBI morons?

WTAE's Jim Parsons reported Wednesday that debris had been found miles off-site and removed by non-search party members. [Special Agent] Crowley confirmed that debris was found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, as well as Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene.
NTSB officials said the debris in New Baltimore is probably from the crash, according to Crowley.
The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the items are lightweight and can easily be carried by wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour heading to the southeast, where both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are located.

www.wtae.com...

No, we are not calling the FBI morons. Read the paragraph again. Please note the punctuation. The distances were interjected by the person writing the article, not a quotation from the FBI.

It is very likely that airplane parts were dropped, but in my mind, I am reminded of the scar on the ground that marked where Flight 93 supposedly crashed.

If you recall the scar on the ground was already there and guess what? That scar on the ground which is the exact spot that Flt 93 crashed on is the "Exact" spot that a previous airliner crashed back in 1993 or 1994.

I can remember right this moment, but the point I want to make for the sake of this threads discussion is that I am puzzled why so many members and others do not know that the scar on the ground was not made by Flt 93, but by the previous airliner that conveniently crashed in the exact same spot. This fact is what I ponder when I read threads like this one.

Lastly and for the sake of discussion is that when I researched the previous airliners crash data and information is when I suspected that the previous airliner crash was a test run of how it might go or a preparation for a future event and then in 2001, they had the final plan that they used to sell to the world the phony 911 Flt 93 myth that the government wanted to brainwash everyone with by over selling it in the media outlets.

Anyway, if you want to expand your Flt 93 crash background data, study up on the previous airliners crash details and I have no doubt you will suspect as I do that the airliner crash in 93 or 94 was a prelude to the big event in 2001.

A dry run of sorts and that is why when Flt 93 supposedly crashed, most if not everyone thought that the gashes on the ground were from Flt 93 when they were actually from the previously downed airliner.

Consider that little bit of information and thank you for considering this additional material to the subject thread being discussed.

Originally posted by lightninboy
The “Let’s roll!” story.

Excuse me but I need to remind you that it's you truthers who are insisting the passengers of flight 93 are either made up identities that never existed, or are all secret gov't agents who disembarked at some invisible secret base somewhere. Plus, it's you truthers who insist that everything concernign the 9/11 attack is fiction being released by gov't controlled mass media and all the witness around Shanksville, the Pentagon, etc etc etc are paid disinformation agents. Therefore, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN STATEMENTS, they wouldn't even need to fake any crash site. They simply would say a plane crashed and then pay everyone in the vicinity to claim they saw plane wreckage, as well as tell the media to put out the "let's roll" story without even needing to snap two lego blocks together to create material evidence to back the claim up.

Thsi is what happens when you mass produce abject paranoia and passing it off as fact- sooner or later your own words come back to haunt you.

My theory has more evidence than the Official Story.

If you genuinely believe that then you severely need to stop hanging around Prison Planet and Infowars and start doing some real tangible research on your own, because there's a hell of a lot more evidence backing what you call the "official story" than what you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Heck, even a simple 30 second Google search on eyewitness Terry Butler would have sunk this drivel like a rowboat in a hurricane. Who in his right mind is going to accuse some guy picking out rusty car parts out of a junk yard of being a secret gov't disinformation agent?

Originally posted by MaxBlack
If you recall the scar on the ground was already there and guess what? That scar on the ground which is the exact spot that Flt 93 crashed on is the "Exact" spot that a previous airliner crashed back in 1993 or 1994.

Perhaps you are still confused. On 9/8/94 US Air Flight 427 from Chicago to Pittsburgh crashed in Hopewell Township on an approach to the airport. en.wikipedia.org... It hit at a steep angle into undisturbed native soil and rock.

reply to post by pteridine

Perhaps you are still confused. On 9/8/94 US Air Flight 427 from Chicago to Pittsburgh crashed in Hopewell Township on an approach to the airport. en.wikipedia.org... It hit at a steep angle into undisturbed native soil and rock.

No plane hit anything, and you cannot prove one did, it is that simple.
The government never proved a plane crashed in Shankville Pa, neither did the FAA. You are “assuming” one crashed because it fits what the media was told to say and like most of you OS defenders many of you cannot fathom the idea that our government was the terrorist.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

If you genuinely believe that then you severely need to stop hanging around Prison Planet and Infowars and start doing some real tangible research on your own, because there's a hell of a lot more evidence backing what you call the "official story

The fact is there is no evidence that backs the OS.
Second line…

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Perhaps you are still confused. On 9/8/94 US Air Flight 427 from Chicago to Pittsburgh crashed in Hopewell Township on an approach to the airport. en.wikipedia.org... It hit at a steep angle into undisturbed native soil and rock.

No plane hit anything, and you cannot prove one did, it is that simple.
The government never proved a plane crashed in Shankville Pa, neither did the FAA. You are “assuming” one crashed because it fits what the media was told to say and like most of you OS defenders many of you cannot fathom the idea that our government was the terrorist.

The discussion was related to a claim that the Shanksville crash site was the exact site of a previous crash. It was not and I was explaining that to another poster. The crash I was referring to happened in 1994, was not a false flag, had nothing to do with conspiracies, and did impact at a steep angle. You, of course, are always quick to respond to anything that you think may cast doubt on your sincere beliefs and often completely miss the point. You have done it again and I am not surprised.

Originally posted by thedman
So what is this ...?

It's an obvious planted burned out piece of wreckage from another crash because you can see it's entirely stripped of insulation, window panes, and paint, even on the outside surface (see bent parts lower left), yet the greenery around it has no fire damage. It's also why there's only a closeup photo of this large piece and is not seen in any other background or aerial shot.

It's an obvious piece of planted wreckage because it's the ONLY piece allegedly at the scene with UA livery colors on it, which the odds on that are astronomical if 95% of the plane was recovered. Like the photo above, there's only a closeup photo of this large piece and is not seen in any other background or aerial shot and unlike the totally burned out large piece above, this piece shows no signs of any fire or explosion damage.

What is the source of this pic? And why have we seen none of the 10 rims that on a 757?

Obviously planted because, again, it's a closeup which you can't prove it was even take at the scene and even if it was at the scene, it's small enough to easily plant. It's looks very weathered or burned out, but no signs of damage to the grass around it.

Is that even a plane part??? Even if it is, another closeup up shot. Can't prove it was even taken at the scene. Small enough to easily plant if it was.

Searchers filled 10 bins like this with debris - some 60 tons

Why do you keep propagating this lie? This was the ONLY garbage dumpster at the scene and the debris (none of it seen with UA livery mind you) didn't even fill it half way up. Stop lying that there were 10.

.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Rafe_

 

Also looking at every vid from this crash from every news station or whoever else recorded and aired the footage everyone can see the absence of any wreckage of a crashed boeing.I think it was the cnbc part where they commented on the lack of debris and how strangley silent the site was,no burning fires could be seen or heard,no bodies or body parts anywhere.

No wreckage huh....?

So what is this ...?



[img]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/P200062-1.jpg[/img




These are some of the larger pieces which survived the impact

Reason did not see any wreckage in many pictures was

1) Shots were taken at long range

2) Much of the debris was smashed into small fragmewnts - that is what happens when a plane hits ground at
575 mph



[img]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/debris_pc1.jpg[/img



Searchers filled 10 bins like this with debris - some 60 tons

The close up single shots that dont reveal anything of the location released way after the crash itself .You forgot to post the rusty engine. thank you for proving my point there.

2) Much of the debris was smashed into small fragmewnts - that is what happens when a plane hits ground at
575 mph

You believe all that bull yourself? Did you triple check that "fact" of yours?


Really there is no comparison because no one up until 9/11 has seen a crash like that,

Here are some real crashes





















Or have a look at this collection
sillyvillage.com...

Seen them?




Now Shanksville 9/11



















This fake crash site was a half assed job.Believing this crash is a achievement all by it self.

reply to post by Rafe_


Real crashes?

The usual conspiracy loon lie....

The crashes you show are all low speed low angle runway type accidents

You can see that in the first picture which shows a aircraft which burned on the ground

Want to see what a real crash looks like ....?

USAIR 427





Hit ground 80 deg angle, 261 knots (300 mph)

PSA 1771 - video

video.google.com...#

Hit ground at MACH 1

Notice similarity to UNITED 93 which hit ground at 575 mph

The high degree of fragmentation of the aircraft

By the way- how many aircraft crashes have you been to...?

I been at a crash scene similar to ones posted. Aircraft hit ground at 350 mph nose down 80 deg angle

Not a lot left - biggest piece found was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin

SO STOP LYING !!!!

Low angle runway type crashes you say


i did not post low angle runway crashes.
Sure if in the the middle of the jungle mid flight is a low angle runway crash to you and if it will help you sleep better at night then by all means be my guest.




everything you posted showed loads of wreckage and more importantly recognizable wreckage unlike the shanksville crash and the 5 seconds of close up video in your link link did not do much other then function as padding to your post.

The absence of debris on flight 93's crash has been explain buy the claim that most of it disapeared into the ground and not as you try and make it out to be "shattered" into little pieces



you claim to "have been to a crash"
And?


Of what ,
a cesna?
a airbus?
a spaceshuttle?


Having been "near" a crash site qualifies you to what exactly ?
To say the least that claim needs some more information.
I have been in car accidents and have seen quite a few am i now some sort of expert on the matter? am i now certified to analyze and judge princess Diana's car accident? You are trying to make yourself look important and credible with this claim but it is nothing but it has no substance to it,How important are you trying make yourself with this claim ?

reply to post by thedman

thedman,

why are you ducking my posts?

reply to post by pteridine

You, of course, are always quick to respond to anything that you think may cast doubt on your sincere beliefs and often completely miss the point. You have done it again and I am not surprised.

Perhaps if you stuck with the” OP discussion” and not try so hard to derail my thread by posting drivel that has nothing to do with the Shankville crash, how does that work for you.