Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Just out of curiosity - why do you keep cutting off the edge of that photo when you post it? Do you really think you are going to fool anybody?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Just out of curiosity - why do you keep cutting off the edge of that photo when you post it? Do you really think you are going to fool anybody?

The image is too large Smarty. Ats cuts it off automatically.

Would you like the full version?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I show this picture to alot of people. I have it printed out. I have shown crash investigators, firemen, police, friends, family, students etc... NOT ONE of them believe it was caused by "Flight 93" (a Boeing 767) even after researching the official story over and over.....

You are living in a fantasy world thinking you are selling that dead story here.
No one buys it.

this is what you 3 offical story sellers are doing concerning flight 93 [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49a097de03bc.jpg[/atsimg]

I dont even think you guys believe the official story. You cant.






[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Sorry, but firstly the 1994 photo shows a HUGE dark gash that does NOT exist in 2001!!! So there goes your "missile" concept.

Secondly, in fact thousands of pieces of debris were recovered from the crash site, as they had BURIED down, some quite deeply, due to the velocity of the airplane, the kinetic energy, and forces involved.

Thirdly, you are missing the OS proper line (OS= "Operational Suitability", per ATS member "mikelee") which is, that the site in Shanksville WAS UA 93, but in fact the "real" lie is that it was actually shot down.

So, which is it??

Go against the 'other' conspiracy theorists? Or, strike out on your own?

Because it seems, in willfully ignoring the mountains of evidence, ie, the recovered debris, the Recorders (both of them), the DNA, etc, etc, you are out on your own limb with this "missile" theory. Which, BTW, makes NO sense at all.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You also may wish to get your facts straight. Twice you've mentioned:

...a massive comercial airliner (Boeing 767)...

Somewhat different in size and mass, between a 767 and a 757.

BTW, in the case of the 757, the majority of mass is concentrated at the center of the fuselage, where the wing and fuselage meet. (Not counting the engines, while heavy overall, are made of hundreds of separate components).

SO, even though the wingspan is 124 feet, the structure of the wings outboard of where the engines are mounted is relatively flimsy. That would account for WHY the depression in the soil isn't the "cartoon cutout" looking image you seem to expect.

[edit on 14 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Sorry, but firstly the 1994 photo shows a HUGE dark gash that does NOT exist in 2001!!! So there goes your "missile" concept.

Your observation skills are wonderful. Yes you are right, the gash is not there, I would image that 7 years is enough time to have it covered up since it was just landfilled shortly after. But whatever caused the gash in 1994 caused the gash in 2000-2001

Secondly, in fact thousands of pieces of debris were recovered from the crash site, as they had BURIED down, some quite deeply, due to the velocity of the airplane, the kinetic energy, and forces involved.

There was nothing "burried down". That is a fantasy that has been debunked years ago and is used by unknowledgable or ignorant fans of the Official Story concerning the events in Shanskville.


This is the only image which shows what they pulled out of the crater. img514.imageshack.us...
It is a 40 yard bin. It is also 1/3 full. There is less then 7 tons of scrap there. The bin was laid in its position with scrap already in it. Bins are usually side loaded. The scrap has been pushed to the back of the bin when the bin was rolled off the rolloff truck supplied by Rollock scrap yard which is mere meters away from the crash site. Besides the picture is a fake evidence as it was released in 2006.

If you really still think that people are buying your fantasy claims then you are sadly mistaken.

Obviously a fully fueled Boeing 767 or 757, a 100+ seat commercial airliner did not crash here on 9/11 ( flight 93) that has been proven for years now. Why are you clinging on to a overly debunked story? Are you hoping to fool really ignorant people?

As for the wings looking like a "cartoon cutout" as you claim weedwhacker, if they were so flimsy, then we would find fragments of wings, and fuel. If you are claiming those dents were caused by wings then you are sadly ignorant of the facts. There is dry unbroken grass coming out of those "dents" the ground was not penetrated or damaged by any impact caused at the same time as the round crater that centers the crevass.

You know the truth that No Boeing comercial airliner crashed in Shanksville on 911 ( the crater ) This is a game you are playing which you are ignorantly refusing to believe you have lost.


Found this pic researching flight 93 which links to this site

Good point.



[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Sorry, but firstly the 1994 photo shows a HUGE dark gash that does NOT exist in 2001!!! So there goes your "missile" concept.

Don Rumsfeld - ..."and shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

I think more with every passing day that the aircraft was shot down and there is more proof to that theory than the OS leads anyone to think that it wasn't shot down.

During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the contents of the cocpit voice recorder of Flight 93 were played for the jury. On April 12, the government released a transcript of the recording, but not the recording itself. A report two years prior to the publication of the Commission's Report -- when the crash time was widely recognized as 10:06 -- stated that "the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage."

The photos provided by fly overs of news aircraft showing the crash site portray a dry looking spot while the OS photos show a wet crash site...The reason? because of the fire department dumping water all over it!

Thats not jet fuel, its water.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Well, I am afraid it's only you and about three others here who cannot understand that looking at the few photos from that site and trying to claim to be a sudden expert on everything that has do do with Shanksville is a fool's errand.

I'd suggest, if truly you wished to KNOW more, is find a way to get in contact with just a few of the many hundreds of people who were actually there, that day and days after.

Or, just sit and Google....and keep a closed mind.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

As for the wings looking like a "cartoon cutout" as you claim weedwhacker, if they were so flimsy, then we would find fragments of wings, and fuel. If you are claiming those dents were caused by wings then you are sadly ignorant of the facts. There is dry unbroken grass coming out of those "dents" the ground was not penetrated or damaged by any impact caused at the same time as the round crater that centers the crevass.

You know the truth that No Boeing comercial airliner crashed in Shanksville on 911 ( the crater ) This is a game you are playing which you are ignorantly refusing to believe you have lost.

Forward 1/3 of plane separated on impact and plowed into tree line and beyond. Can so this by the burnt trees/brush in the woods.

Forgetting that plane struck at 580 mph, faster than pistol bullet. the debris is either going to be driven into ground or projected in front of
impact point.

Responders at impact point



Searching for debris/remains



Impact crater early on 9/11 - before ground was disturbed



Another shot - notice person standing at bottom center of crater for size
comparision



Still dont think its big enough ?

Crater

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I'd suggest, if truly you wished to KNOW more, is find a way to get in contact with just a few of the many hundreds of people who were actually there, that day and days after.

Or, just sit and Google....and keep a closed mind.

We did. Some of these people were contacted and this is where the conclusion that A Boeing 757 did not crash in that small crater near Shanksville on 911. The images are just icing on the cake that also proves that a boeing 757 or 767 did not crash there.

I dont get all my information from Jref or 911debunkmyths website like some of you do. Their claims have been debunked many years ago and are in a great need of an update. sad

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

As for the wings looking like a "cartoon cutout" as you claim weedwhacker, if they were so flimsy, then we would find fragments of wings, and fuel. If you are claiming those dents were caused by wings then you are sadly ignorant of the facts. There is dry unbroken grass coming out of those "dents" the ground was not penetrated or damaged by any impact caused at the same time as the round crater that centers the crevass.

You know the truth that No Boeing comercial airliner crashed in Shanksville on 911 ( the crater ) This is a game you are playing which you are ignorantly refusing to believe you have lost.

Responders at impact point



Searching for debris/remains



No plane here! Nothing found, maybe dsome cruise missile fragments or ....

Impact crater early on 9/11 - before ground was disturbed



Still no plane here... we will jsut keep on looking " Are you sure this is where flight 93 came down"?

Another shot - notice person standing at bottom center of crater for size
comparision



Still dont think its big enough ?

Not even remotley big enough. A car traveling at 500mph would of left a bigger crater. Not a plane crash silly.

Crater



Teeny weeny crater. Not big enough. doesnt support the kinetics involved to be a Boeing 757 traveling at over 500mph at near 50 degreee angle.

Nice try tho


[edit on 14-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Some of these people were contacted and this is where the conclusion that A Boeing 757 did not crash in that small crater near Shanksville on 911.

Could you be more specific?? It would help your credibility (and who is "we"?)

What I mean is, IF you actually contacted people who were AT the site, and were involved in the examination, collection of debris (to include human remains, when possible).

You say "some" were contacted....but, that is a pretty large information gap.

Just what are you trying to hide?

I'll add also that I have called and spoken with law enforcement, fire personnel and search & rescue personnel who were there that day...REPEAT...Were there that day. They all stated the same thing and that was there appeared to be no aircraft that had crashed.

I find it funny in a sad way that some of these posters in here think we all get every single piece of our information from the internet. I have no issue at all about calling someone or some agency to aid in the truth quest regarding the major FUBAR case that is, the OS.

reply to post by mikelee

They all stated the same thing and that was there appeared to be no aircraft that had crashed.

I'll ask you, then also as I asked SH...

What does that mean, "appeared to be no aircraft" in its full context?

Were they merely saying something like, "Wow! It's amazing, it appears there is no aircraft here...." and you are leaving off the rest of it, if you asked them, "But did you see any indications of debris on a closer examination?"

SO, which is it? If you asked them the full answer, and not just selected the few sentences you wish, what is the full story?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I asked all of them flat out, "do you think an aircraft crashed there."
I didn't ask 'whats your opinion on the condition of the site where it crashed?"

I got the answers I suspected was the case. I also asked "do you believe there was/is a cover up regarding any or all of the facts about this case?" Each one them stated "yes" in no uncertain terms.

Its not a matter of asking a question designed to provide a certain answer, to me thats not fair. If someone doe snot believe that there was anything "unusual" about it, then fine and I have stated that before. What amazes me is the number of people who believe there is a cover up and that the government has a bigger role in this than it led people to believe to the contrary.

Once I believed the OS until I started doing the research & asking questions of people who were either at one of the sites or was able to corroborate some of my suspicions on my own. Its a personal choice and one that every American who loves his or her freedom should be doing.

reply to post by mikelee


Names would be useful.

OR have them appear on the ATS boards with their stories.

Else it's all hearsay. Sorry.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'd suggest, if truly you wished to KNOW more, is find a way to get in contact with just a few of the many hundreds of people who were actually there, that day and days after.

Or, just sit and Google....and keep a closed mind.

Can you provide a list of names of the people that were there to witness flight 93 crash into the ground? Thanks.

Speaking of people that were there...what did the coroner say again? Can you remind me?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Not going to post people's names for any reason here. Like it or not or call it hearsay if you wish. I'm not a media person so posting their names isn't appropriate...and you know that. My questions were for my personal validation regarding the suspicious story of the OS.

Again, every American who values their freedoms needs to perform their own investigation and it will soon become clear that the OS does not make sense.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


What do we have here?

Piece of fuselage



Another piece - pained in United colors



Wheel




More debris







Notice something about debris field Sherlock?

Its not near impact crater, but in woods where debris was projected by
force of impact - again (since have problems with comprehension)
forward part of aircraft broke off and continued into trees

Can see this in aerial shot - notice debris trail into woods




Rest of debris was driven deep into ground - which is why dont see much debris near crater. it is in woods forward of the crater or buried

Originally posted by mikelee


Not going to post people's names for any reason here.

Can't blame you for that.

I've also called people that were there, and curiously, they ALL said that a plane definitely crashed there. They base their statements on what they found - plane parts, body parts, smell of jet fuel, etc.

I also won't be posting names though.