NTSB document : flight 93 multiple crash sites

The record below from the NTSB dataset contains the brief of accident report currently on file. It indicates that:

* In flight collision with land/water.

Meaning the aircraft has multiple debris/crash sites. As I have stated for over a year now. If the crater in Shanksville PA were in deed the ONLY crash site, then it would be listed so on this document as "collision with land" only.

This also proves (in my opinion) that the FBI has now been proven beyond any doubt to have lied about the crater in Shanksville as being the only crash site for flight 93. The document clearly states "in flight collision with land/water" so no one should be able to say that they mean "debris fields" because there is a major difference in the two.

This also proves (in my opinion) that there are indeed more than one crash/debris sites for flight 93 in which now, the shoot down theory is a little more than just speculation.

NTSB document here

My personal belief they gave the green light to shoot it down, but won't admit it to the public.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I also share your opinion.

I bet it was remote control, like the other planes in NY. One guy said something about a pod for remote control used by the military. www.youtube.com...

Easy target to shoot down. Sound plausible.

reply to post by mikelee


How does the report, such as it is, prove that there was more than one crash site?

All it says is that the NTSB will not issue a report and this is now "under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

There wasnt even one crash site of a Boeing 757 as the eyewitnesses and evidence proves.

Maybe your theory that it was shot down hold little water. According to your Ntsb report. The engine crashed in the water behind the small crater site. This is why they reported that part of the 'plane' was in water since the engine was allegedly pulled out of it.

Sorry.

I just know that the pod people spread disinfo about pods and shootdowns aside with the theories about holograms and space weapons.


I agree tho that the crash site was not caused by a Boeing 757. The eyewitnesses all claim to a see a craft the size of a van and none of them claim to see a craft that was shot at or coming down in pieces.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder

The engine crashed in the water behind the small crater site.

So now your admitting that you agree with that a plane did crash there uh? Before in your other threads you call it "disinfo" among other things. Think "someone" needs to get what they really believe in order.

It can't be both ways here folks, there cannot be "no plane crashed at all" in one thread then in another state there was just an engine there so thats why they....Get my drift here? The NTSB doc cites two distinct collision locales: Land & water. Meaning the crash/debris was in two locations...ie two crash sites.

FBI lied, media lied (probably thru deception though) regarding there was only ONE CRASH site.




[edit on 3/23/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


Maybe you should read carefully and investigate the evidence more clearly. Your other threads promote not only the shootdown theory but energy weapons and other nonsensical theories that no real 911 researcher has ever embraced.

And..... Nope, never agreed that a Boeing 757 crashed there I am just regurgitating what the official story is saying. The official story claims that an engine was pulled out of water so does your NTSB report so there goes the shoot down theory and the point of this thread.

Through the years I have been in contact with people who sold the idea of the shoot down and their ill reasons for spreading such an un-corroborated theme. The fact is that eyewitnesses saw something quite small (size of a van) and not a Boeing 757 crash. This is why the crater was so small. 6-10 feet deep.


Careful how you cherry pick my post. It reminds me of some debunkers here.





[edit on 23-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

why were there only 44 passengers (including crew) on that plane?

don't planes run near max cap at around 100-140 people?

reply to post by ugie1028


So many flights I've been on have been nearly empty, once I even had an entire 747 to myself on an Olympic flight from N.Y. to Athens!


[edit on 2010/3/24 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]

reply to post by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU


really?

I have been on flights and they have always been packed. being that it was a Tuesday morning, one would think that it would be at full capacity.

just never actually realized the plane wasn't packed.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU

 

really?

I have been on flights and they have always been packed. being that it was a Tuesday morning, one would think that it would be at full capacity.

just never actually realized the plane wasn't packed.

Actually, according to the Commission report, the hijackers just happen to pick the one day of the week with the lowest average amount of passengers(per the FAA) load per flight. If I remember correctly, they averaged this based off data from the previous several months.

It gets better though, all four of the flights were well below this already low average passenger load for that Tuesday. And you might have guessed, f93 was the emptiest something like 50% under its already normally low average passenger load.

I have to admit also, when I first heard how many passengers were on those planes I was shocked. At that very exact time frame I had been flying out of Dulles on a very regular basis. Mostly cross country flights by the way, and I can tell you personally that the planes were always packed.

reply to post by mikelee


For what it is worth a think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "/" in a mult-word application.

It is a common shortcut for forms, please look at other reports in that NTSB database, they are replete with the shortcut:

Owner/Operator
Airport/Airstrip

and others.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU

 

really?

I have been on flights and they have always been packed. being that it was a Tuesday morning, one would think that it would be at full capacity.

just never actually realized the plane wasn't packed.

I don't think it was an accident or coincidence that the planes were nowhere near capacity. If I were planning the hijacking I would also choose flights that were traditionally lightly filled at the point of origin, this information was easily available in 2001 from anyone of the more popular travel sites.

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think it was an accident or coincidence that the planes were nowhere near capacity. If I were planning the hijacking I would also choose flights that were traditionally lightly filled at the point of origin, this information was easily available in 2001 from anyone of the more popular travel sites.

Strange though for terrorist who normally want a high body count.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think it was an accident or coincidence that the planes were nowhere near capacity. If I were planning the hijacking I would also choose flights that were traditionally lightly filled at the point of origin, this information was easily available in 2001 from anyone of the more popular travel sites.

Strange though for terrorist who normally want a high body count.

I think the "body count" objective was to be achieved via crashing the hijacked planes into the targets. Nothing strange at all.

Originally posted by hooper
Nothing strange at all.

Well not if you folllow terrorist sites and thier history.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Nothing strange at all.

Well not if you folllow terrorist sites and thier history.

The objective was to use the hijacked airplanes to cause the "body count" at high profile targets, not to kill as many people in the planes. Anything that would hinder or otherwise impede the hijacking was counterproductive. To that end, I am supposing that they purposefully chose flights that were statistically lightly boarded so as minimize the potential for passengers to thwart their prime objective which was to crash the hijacked planes into the buildings, the WTC towers, the Pentagon and some other unknown target, assumed to be in or around Washington, DC.

Originally posted by hooper
The objective was to use the hijacked airplanes to cause the "body count" at high profile targets, not to kill as many people in the planes.

The objective of most terrorist is to cause as high as body count as possible.

I mean suppose if more of the planes could not make it to thier intended targets like flight 93.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
The objective was to use the hijacked airplanes to cause the "body count" at high profile targets, not to kill as many people in the planes.

The objective of most terrorist is to cause as high as body count as possible.

I mean suppose if more of the planes could not make it to thier intended targets like flight 93.

Whatever.

You are just being a contrarian.

The logic is simple. A) Hijack planes. B) Take over controls. C) Crash planes into buildings. Anything that could interfer with A would be deemed contradictory to the mission. If you were to hijack a plane would you want there to be a lot of passengers, increasing the chances of the passengers thwarting the hijacking, particularly since the hijackers were relatively lightly armed and relying on the generally accepted practise of cooperating with hijackers.