Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?

Below are two views of the Pennsylvania crash site. The first one is from the day of and the second is from a 1994 Geo Sat photo from the USGS.

Crash site on the day of September 11, 2001


Crash site in 1994

Now I ask you this, is it just a coincidence that what appears to be the same land anomaly in both photos? Or is it something more? A cover up perhaps staged on that very anomaly?

The chances of probability that an aircraft would crash on the same location would be very high. However, to have an aircraft crash in that same location and to just happen to have been involved in the worst terrorist attack in the world and yet again, it just happens to be the most disputed of all of the terrorist flights that day(in my opinion) seems to be astronomical.

This would be the same probability in my opinion as the Space Shuttle debris falling into trash dumpsters at NASA

And finally.....

From the government's own OS:

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."

They didn't play the reording because that would be proof that the aircraft had "a hole in it". Wonder how that hole got there then?

reply to post by mikelee


Where is the coincidence? That there was ditch or excavation on a piece of ground? You do know that is Pennsylvania and not the surface of the moon, right? The landscape does change, both by human intervention and natural causes.

I don't see the big mystery.

Originally posted by mikelee
Now I ask you this, is it just a coincidence that what appears to be the same land anomaly in both photos? Or is it something more? A cover up perhaps staged on that very anomaly?

Unless I'm looking at your photos incorrectly, it looks as if flight 93 crashed perpendicular to that landmark the 1994 photo. Instead of just a line, it's now an X.

So what's your point?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee

 

Where is the coincidence? That there was ditch or excavation on a piece of ground? You do know that is Pennsylvania and not the surface of the moon, right? The landscape does change, both by human intervention and natural causes.

I don't see the big mystery.

If you don't see it then I respect that. Thanks for your reply.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Thanks for your input Dave. Appreciate it.

The 1994 crash site was right behind my father's office. In no way similar to Shanksville site. Not in elevation, geography or terrain.

reply to post by van001


Are you referencing another site or crash?

reply to post by mikelee


mike, I'm just hazarding a guess here, but I think maybe Van001 was referring to a different crash, in PA, in 1994:

en.wikipedia.org...


You see, as a pilot I tend to tune in to just about any aviation accident story, and usually have a pretty good idea of the scenarios each time. ALSO, we tend to study them at length, in many cases, in order to learn from them, especially when there is a Human Performance failure aspect involved.

Some professions (medicine, etc) refer to this as "continuing education". Our term (at airlines) is "recurrent training". Same difference.

USAir 427 was similar in only one way to United 93, the angle of impact, just about straight down.

Speeds, though were VERY different, circumstances (of course) were different, and the type of surface (the land composition) was different.

I believe that this has been addressed before on this site (I'm not going to look for it...). I think the point the OP is trying to make is that the hole in the ground that 93 was supposed to have (according to the early reports anyway) crashed into and completely buried itself is this original hole from the 1994 aerial picture plus a small 'bomb crater' added. The hole - which is about the size and shape of the aircraft - swallowed the plane.

Some 'twoofers' (I know, I'm just being facetious) believe that the size and shape of this hole was convenient to fit the OS, and an explosion was set - or a bomb dropped - in the hole for effect. Other footage which was shown briefly but then disappeared showed debris a long way away.

The OS at the time was that the plane had come down almost vertically and buried itself completely in the hole due to soft earth. The debris found some distance away had "blown" there. Miles and miles over relatively wet ground with an opposing wind, uphill or some such nonsense. Grass was photographed growing untouched in the crater where the wings should have entered.

This is an old story. Just another in the list of amazing coincidences of 9/11/01. It was the most anomalous day in history.

reply to post by mikelee

They didn't play the reording because that would be proof that the aircraft had "a hole in it". Wonder how that hole got there then?

Would you please provide a source for the snippet in your OP?

Because, if you cut and pasted it from the source, it's interesting to note the typo in it. (The word "cockpit" is misspelled).


But, to answer your question. That snip mentioned a loud wind noise, in the final seconds before the recording stopped.

At extremely high airspeeds, the wind noise sound level inside the cockpit will increase in volume, without any need for any "holes" in the fuselage. The B-757/767 are generally a pleasant cockpit environment when it comes to wind noise, as compared to earlier models with different window designs, like the B-727 and B-737 (those two, along with the B-707, actually are virtually the same, in cockpit window design). However, the airplane was well above "normal" speeds typical for that altitude, so the sounds could have been from that.

Besides, IF the airplane (UA 93) had been fired upon, whether via the cannon from an F-16, or an air-to-air missile impact, it's doubtful that the breach would have been in the area of the cockpit. The cannon would likely have been aimed at a wing, in order to destroy it, and cause an uncontrollable flight condition, and a missile is usually heat-seeking, so it would aim at an engine.

We see NO evidence, in debris patterns, of either scenario.

(It's interesting to read what one F-16 pilot has said, after that day. I wish I could find it --- He was airborne, actively searching for United 93, but he launched unarmed. His thinking was to possibly RAM the B-757 from behind, using his jet to shear off a wing, and hopefully timing it so as to eject safely. He wasn't suicidal, just considering his options....)





[edit on 13 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Badgered1

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that the hole in the ground that 93 was supposed to have (according to the early reports anyway) crashed into and completely buried itself

There were no "early reports" of the plane completely buring itself. Except in conspiracy circles were their "stories" were met with feigned disbelief.

is this original hole from the 1994 aerial picture plus a small 'bomb crater' added. The hole - which is about the size and shape of the aircraft - swallowed the plane.

You think the ditch shown in the 1994 aerial photo is about the size and shape of an aircraft? Are you familiar with what aircraft look like?

Some 'twoofers' (I know, I'm just being facetious) believe that the size and shape of this hole was convenient to fit the OS, and an explosion was set - or a bomb dropped - in the hole for effect. Other footage which was shown briefly but then disappeared showed debris a long way away.

You do realize, of course, that the photo was taken SEVEN years before Flight 93 crashed there? In an active construction/reclamation site? Do you think this same ditch or berm line was still there in 2001? This isn't a mountain range. It is a mark made by earthmoving equipment.

The OS at the time was that the plane had come down almost vertically and buried itself completely in the hole due to soft earth.

Again, this is the very special conspiracist "OS" we are talking about here. The one where you can interject any claim and that claim stands, the only requirement being that it must be repeated often.

The debris found some distance away had "blown" there. Miles and miles over relatively wet ground

Uh, where did you get the "wet ground" stuff from?

with an opposing wind, uphill or some such nonsense.

The "debris" in question were letters and light articles. Flight 93 was carrying postal cargo.

Grass was photographed growing untouched in the crater where the wings should have entered.

No, there is a photo, taken from a distance, that includes dry grass in the foregorund outside of the impact zone.

This is an old story.

Boy, did you say a mouthful.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Would you please provide a source for the snippet in your OP?

The source is the Zacarias Moussaoui trail. The recording was played during the trial and thats what was quoted as being on the recording by a range of sources such as CBS, CNN, NBC, DWTV, MSNMB etc etc.

It isn't difficult to find. Below is another source I located while typing this.

Several passengers – perhaps all – put into action an attempt to take back control of the airplane. By 10:03 a.m., they succeeded in fighting their way into the cockpit. It is at this point where the CVR recorded what may be a piercing of the fuselage – a wind or sucking noise.

SOURCE: World Net Daily

[edit on 13-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


I see an immediate problem with credibility at WND, and this lack of cred has been discussed at length, many times. Here's an example; this is NOT a sample of good journalistic practice, nor is it really journalism at all...WND is a pretend journalistic 'source'. They are an opinion piece, pure and simple:

What if, when the Cockpit Voice Recorder was first played back, the missing three minutes were not missing? What if the CVR recorded the heroic passengers succeeding in taking over the cockpit? They were definitely on the offense when the CVR allegedly stopped. They had penetrated into the cockpit.

See? I'm not a professional journalist, but I DO read, and I understand the line that should not be crossed in true impartial reporting.

But wait, there's more!!

What if, in the cruelest of fates, just as these Americans win the fight and begin to fly the plane, a heat-seeking missile slams into an engine?

They are basing all of this "speculation" merely from the CVR tape. They are ignoring (and hoping YOU will too) the FDR.

What if that is what the missing three minutes actually revealed? No president, no administration, would willingly destroy itself by releasing that CVR transcript.

WHAT "missing three minutes"??

The CVR and FDR stopped at exactly the same time, as I've pointed out, they both receive onboard time info from the Captain's clock, which is set by the pilots, and we can't assume it was EXACT. This ties in with the false assertion, mentioned in other threads, about the airborne time per ATC tapes, and their more accurate timelines.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Captain Weedwhacker, how can I say this in a kind way? Give it up. The evidence is now so overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job, anyone who spends a significant amount of time arguing otherwise looks foolish -- or worse.

If you don't have the mental acuity to see what's become a mountain of incriminating evidence against the Bush neocons, I honestly would not want to fly in any plane that you were piloting.



[edit on 14-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

From "cell phone" call of passenger Edward Felt

"A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom with a chilling message: "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Minutes later the jetliner crashed with 45 people aboard, the last of four closely timed terror attacks across the country. Minutes before the 10 a.m. crash, an emergency dispatcher in Pennsylvania received a cell phone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom aboard United Flight 93. The man repeatedly said the call was not a hoax, said dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer in neighboring Westmoreland County. "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man as saying, from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said." - SFGate/AP (09/11/01)

reply to post by mikelee

"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man as saying, from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said." - SFGate/AP (09/11/01)

Ok, seriously, I am confused here a little bit with this statement.

He heard some sort of explosion

Is "he" the man making the cell phone call from the plane?

and saw white smoke coming from the plane

If "he" was making a phone call from inside a locked bathroom on the plane then how did he see white smoke coming from the plane? or was this the dispatcher saying he saw smoke coming from the plane.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee

 

"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man as saying, from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said." - SFGate/AP (09/11/01)

Ok, seriously, I am confused here a little bit with this statement.

He heard some sort of explosion

Is "he" the man making the cell phone call from the plane?

and saw white smoke coming from the plane

If "he" was making a phone call from inside a locked bathroom on the plane then how did he see white smoke coming from the plane? or was this the dispatcher saying he saw smoke coming from the plane.

By how the statement reads "he" is the man on the phone inside the plane talking to a dispatcher on the ground after dialing 911.

Perhaps he opened the bathroom door? That would be the most plausible reason or...

The cell phone call was faked and this is another OS lie.

Since there is supposedly a record of 911 calls then I'll assume "they" have an account of this call somewhere. Perhaps at Iron Mountain with the rest of the "evidence."

reply to post by mikelee


Well, actually there is a transcript of the 911 call in the 9/11 commision report files. No mention of an explosion or white smoke coming from the plane.

Personally, I think this is just an example of a poorly worded article by an AP writer.

reply to post by hooper


The article is a quote from the dispatcher and it was recorded so there isn;t any poor reporting going on. The deal is that the 911 report left it out because it would have been an admission by proxy that the plane had a hole in it...What made the hole?

The 911 report is not complete thats a fact. Panel memebrs have stated that as wel as other officials.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


OK, Goldie....

The evidence is now so overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job...

Please elaborate.

Specifics.

What, exactly, does "inside job" mean??? Is there a consensus among conspiracy believers?

We see in this thread, a so-called Pennsylvania crash site coincidence, nothing at all to support that OP.

I challenged OP to look at other sites, well apart from Shanksville, and come forward with the results, so far no response. Perhaps finding that other reclaimed strip mining sites look eerily similar isn't something the OP wishes to admit???

Ya know, if UA 93 had been put down only a minute or two earlier, or later, then this discussion would probably not be happening at all.

IF it had gone down into a more wooded area, or into a more urban setting, THEN we would have some inane argument, no doubt.

If you want a "conspiracy", and one doesn't exist, then you will make one up. (Using the pronoun "you" in the plural, not the personal).