Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Shadow Herder

firefight
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Flight 93 was a United Airlines plane that supposedly was upside-down when it allegedly crashed.

Crash debris in United livery ..........

sites.google.com...

YEs that picture was released as " evidence" in 2003 or 2006. It is not evidence of anything.

The images were released years after the event. It means nothings. There is more evidence that points that a large commercial airliner did not crash in Shanksville on 911.

Calling me a truther for showing people that the wargames, Israel, surrogates were used for the operational cover to make 911 happen is just poor pathetic tactics and a ad-hominen attack which is against the forum rules and they have exhausted their usefulness at this forum.

Shadow Herder

Originally posted by waypastvne
.

Thanks for the picture that proves that the crater is too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

Notice the crater looks like a missile or bomb crater and not that of a Boeing 757 crash.
Great picture. What if oftentimes confused for wing scars are not. They are weathered impressions that was there before that circular 30 foot crater was created on 9/11 as you will see in the next picture.

The camera man is standing in the "wing scar" notice its anything but. It was not created on 911.



Here is another picture that shows you that was created on 911 was a small 30 foot crater no more than 10 feet deep.



This information presented is fact. No wing scars.

Calling me a truther for showing people that the wargames, Israel, surrogates were used for the operational cover to make 911 happen is just poor pathetic tactics and a ad-hominen attack which is against the forum rules and they have exhausted their usefulness at this forum.

I never called you anything like that. Problem with your line of thinking is that no other 757 with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel has ever slammed into the ground nose first. There is no other event that you can compare with the photos to see if the wing scars should be there or not.

If you have some photos of other plane crash scenes that have played out in a similar fashion then a comparison can be done.

I've noticed that this thread did not get placed into the hoax bin.

So maybe it's worthwhile still to create new 9/11 evidence threads..

See ya soon.

Best regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


the only thing that belongs in the hoax bin is the offical story

Woah, very interesting thread..
I am still in the no plane crowd. Mainly because most agree that the passengers did not over take the plane.
So if it was shot down, as every one seems to say it was and rummy let slip then where is the wreckage? It wouldn't have been going the incredible speed needed to make it disappear.
The crater doesn't make sense and the "wing" marks don't suggest any type of wing hitting there, as stated before there is undamaged grass clearly visible where the wing would have hit full of fuel.
Where is the tail? How often does a tail of an airplane just disappear? Besides the pentagon I didn't see a repeat of a tail just being gone. It is one of the last things to hit... usually survives the worst crashes. That's why one of the black boxes goes back there correct?
If a plane crashed there it wasn't flight 93... Ill say something crashed, can't deny that, just not a boeing

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Woah, very interesting thread..
I am still in the no plane crowd. Mainly because most agree that the passengers did not over take the plane.
So if it was shot down, as every one seems to say it was and rummy let slip then where is the wreckage? It wouldn't have been going the incredible speed needed to make it disappear.
The crater doesn't make sense and the "wing" marks don't suggest any type of wing hitting there, as stated before there is undamaged grass clearly visible where the wing would have hit full of fuel.
Where is the tail? How often does a tail of an airplane just disappear? Besides the pentagon I didn't see a repeat of a tail just being gone. It is one of the last things to hit... usually survives the worst crashes. That's why one of the black boxes goes back there correct?
If a plane crashed there it wasn't flight 93... Ill say something crashed, can't deny that, just not a boeing

Couldn't have said it any better

a reply to: Sremmos80



Similar impact but harder ground. Don't see a tail there either.

You're comparing low speed, low angle impacts with high speed, high angle impacts and expecting the to look identical.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Use your intellect and research this yourself. Dont let the next few posters who deny these claims of fantasy or truther nonsense sway you. Their agenda should be transparent now. Research.

So in other words, everyone who uses common sense, demands evidence, or even questions your denial of everything that happened in this instance means we're all "shills", right? lol

So tell me, what would be the reason to do this, to "stage" all of this (without anyone seeing), and where are the people who were on that plane?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sremmos80

Similar impact but harder ground. Don't see a tail there either.

You're comparing low speed, low angle impacts with high speed, high angle impacts and expecting the to look identical.

The same way "truthers" ignore physics and claim that a high speed metal object couldn't possibly penetrate the side of those buildings. You know that's pretty strange, they preach a warped explanation of the laws of physics to try to suggest that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, then they deny basic physics when it comes to the impact of those high-velocity planes hitting the building...

Excellent questions really. When I question these things like the phone calls for instance, I don't like to question the personal aspects but rather the information only as it was presented to us by the authorities. They claim there were only two cell phone calls, both from this flight but this goes against two family members who specifically state they saw the caller id containing a cell phone number, but the commission pegs these as airphone calls. Also, one person who called said they borrowed a cell phone from another passenger. I believe but can't be sure that this was also considered an airphone call in the FBI exhibit. This throws a shadow over all the phone call evidence. I don't doubt the calls necessarily but like I said this makes it hard to trust the story as it was told to us. Please correct anything I say as wrong, but my understanding is that the FDR from flight 93 was unreadable and the CVR only offered a few minutes of information. This seems unlikely since they are located in the tail and would have suffered the least damage in a nose impact. This is merely opinion of course. The DNA I don't know enough about but I would imagine it is hard to argue. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the c-130 pilot was headed to Minnesota on what must have been a most important cargo plane trip. He just for into the air before the skies were shut down and happened to have just witnessed the pentagon crash. With everything going on this seemingly critical flight carried on and then just happened to also be the main witness to flight 93. Lastly, I don't pretend to speculate on the "what happened to the passengers" question. If I'm going to believe the official story it's going to be because I believe the evidence as presented and my own supportive research. It won't be by default just because there's nothing better. You raise some very solid arguments against any other theories no doubt.

a reply to: TheBolt

Both recorders had data from the entire flight. Only the end of the flight was released publicly as that was deemed the most important part.

Data recorders do lose data in crashes though. Sometimes they break open and fire or water damage them. Sometimes the impact does.

Thank you. a reply to: Zaphod58

Here's something I don't understand. When Cheney gives an update to Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld asks him if he has a shootdown authorization or something to that effect, Cheney answers "yes and I believe we've already shot a couple down." Who says that if it didn't happen, who says not one but a couple, and if it is such a rare and difficult decision (which I have no doubt it is) then who doesn't react and ask a lot more questions to someone reporting not one possible but multiple possible shootdowns, especially the secretary of defense? This conversation proves nothing obviously but it's a pretty odd and shockingly nonchalant exchange. a reply to: thedman