Wonder why there were two United 93 crash sites?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If the plane was shot down doesn't that make an inside job even more unlikely? Why would the conspirators shoot down their own plane?

Because by shooting down a "real" plane that's going out-of-service and operating under drone-like control with no passengers or pilots, you support the story of the three other missiles, err, I mean planes. It's an easy and cheap way to float the "story" you want everyone to believe.

Cheers - Dave

So one plane three missiles?

That's what I figure and the plane was not occupied. I believe there were a large number of victims in the actual twin towers however. It's a lot like the Titanic, kill a lot of birds with one stone, it's a switch and play. Think about it, what were the upsides?

1. Whoever was in charge got rid of a bunch of stock brokers and bankers all of whom were not from that not-to-be-named middle eastern fiefdom on the Mediterranean.
2. Silverberg or Silverstein or whatever that troll's name was, was having serious problems maintaining the WTC, to the tune of a million dollars a day. Seems they had a serious asbestos problem and the asbestos had to be removed. Oh, and he put terrorism insurance on the building 6 weeks before 9/11. By getting his buddy GW to blame terrorists, he got to pull the buildings (demolition), not get blamed for the mess or the huge number of respiratory cancers that are going to show up in NYC in the next few years and he got to collect ALL the insurance money. What a sweet deal huh?
3. The bankers got to put in play the beginning of final solution under the auspices of a foreign attack. The US now has the equivalent of the KGB, loss of rights and freedoms, accelerating inflation, kangaroo courts and in-your-face puppet governments.
4. The pentagon misplaced 2.2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money stated on national TV Sept 10 the day before 9/11, all the evidence of which, just happened to be in that area of the pentagon hit by the missile, err, I mean plane. Kind of hard to prosecute a case of corruption with no evidence...

So, what is that, take down a few buildings and get 10 things done worth trillions of dollars at the same time? They're getting ambitious or seriously exploitative, with the Titanic they only covered a couple of bases. I've seen this done before and I have performed the investigation of past events that I followed closely for personal reasons (the Helderberg 1987, 159 dead, they tried to kill my CO, a couple of MI ops died, one engineer involved in the development of the false VOR beacon that killed Machel died and of course weapons grade raw materials for SAMS and EMP weapons for the Angolan war disappeared into CIA hands actually).

When there are a series of problems or targets and there is one solution to removes all the problems or targets at the same time, the sweeter the action and the higher the probability of a single solution scenario. Remember the seal team and bin Laden, hmmm, all of them died in helicopter crash? What are the chances of that?

As it says in my sig below, my CO used to tell me, once is happenstance, twice coincidence and three times is enemy action.

ETA - One more thing, NONE of the official story makes sense to any of the people like me that I know, from laypeople, tradespeople, etc. to engineers and physicists who worked in weapons research or the intel community (I happen to be one of those). If the government had real information/videos, they would have produced them IMMEDIATELY to garner REAL public support. The problem is you can't fake that many victims and videos, altering all the information after the fact (that their/government missiles hit their targets). Plus if you consider all the media slips from White House spokesmen stating missiles and then correcting themselves and all the other news video and the way it was presented, you pretty much have to come to the conclusion that 9/11 is Alice In BunglerLand gone seriously bad.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If the plane was shot down doesn't that make an inside job even more unlikely? Why would the conspirators shoot down their own plane?

Because by shooting down a "real" plane that's going out-of-service and operating under drone-like control with no passengers or pilots, you support the story of the three other missiles, err, I mean planes. It's an easy and cheap way to float the "story" you want everyone to believe.

Cheers - Dave

So one plane three missiles?

That's what I figure and the plane was not occupied. I believe there were a large number of victims in the actual twin towers however. It's a lot like the Titanic, kill a lot of birds with one stone, it's a switch and play. Think about it, what were the upsides?

1. Whoever was in charge got rid of a bunch of stock brokers and bankers all of whom were not from that not-to-be-named middle eastern fiefdom on the Mediterranean.
2. Silverberg or Silverstein or whatever that troll's name was, was having serious problems maintaining the WTC, to the tune of a million dollars a day. Seems they had a serious asbestos problem and the asbestos had to be removed. Oh, and he put terrorism insurance on the building 6 weeks before 9/11. By getting his buddy GW to blame terrorists, he got to pull the buildings (demolition), not get blamed for the mess or the huge number of respiratory cancers that are going to show up in NYC in the next few years and he got to collect ALL the insurance money. What a sweet deal huh?
3. The bankers got to put in play the beginning of final solution under the auspices of a foreign attack. The US now has the equivalent of the KGB, loss of rights and freedoms, accelerating inflation, kangaroo courts and in-your-face puppet governments.
4. The pentagon misplaced 2.2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money, all the evidence of which, just happened to be in that area of the pentagon hit by the missile, err, I mean plane. Kind of hard to prosecute a case of corruption with no evidence...

So, what is that, take down a few buildings and get 10 things done worth trillions of dollars at the same time? They're getting ambitious or seriously exploitative, with the Titanic they only covered a couple of bases. I've seen this done before and I have performed the investigation of past events that I followed closely for personal reasons (the Helderberg 1987, 159 dead, they tried to kill my CO, a couple of MI ops died, one engineer involved in the development of the false VOR beacon that killed Machel died and of course weapons grade raw materials for SAMS and EMP weapons for the Angolan war).

When there are a series of problems or targets and there is one solution to removes all the problems or targets at the same time, the sweeter the action and the higher the probability of a single solution scenario. Remember the seal team and bin Laden, hmmm, all of them died in helicopter crash? What are the chances of that?

As it says in my sig below, my CO used to tell me, once is happenstance, twice coincidence and three times enemy action.

Cheers - Dave

edit on 4/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

But what about planes in NY, and Pentagon, were they fake?

reply to post by maxella1


They were missiles? Just because they had wings and jet engines doesn't mean they were planes. Here's an interesting video that makes quite a bit of sense. It's long....

Google Video Link

Just in case I don't embed this right, here's the LINK

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by maxella1

 

They were missiles? Just because they had wings and jet engines doesn't mean they were planes. Here's an interesting video that makes quite a bit of sense. It's long....

Google Video Link

Just in case I don't embed this right, here's the LINK

Cheers - Dave

edit on 4/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

Here's my opinion, and it's only an opinion nothing more. Like I said before, I’m not here to prove anything.
I am going to disagree with the fake planes/victims theory.. I was in Brooklyn on 9/11, I watched the buildings burn, and collapse from across the east river with my own two eyes. I have contact with many different people in the line of work that I do. And I am telling you that the people who were murdered were real, and families who lost loved ones are very real, I met many of them personally.
The official explanation of 9/11 is impossible for me to believe, and the cover up is very obvious to me at least.

I don't know who started this fake victims/planes theory. If you are not spreading this information on purpose, but actually believe it, please stop and think about it for a while. You are not helping to get to the truth. The so called debunkers use you to discredit everyone else.
And with this I would like to stop talking about the theory of fake victims/airplanes.

reply to post by maxella1


No problem, but I will say one last thing. I know people who were on the ground within a few blocks that day. People I trust as well, that were not American Citizens and who had nothing to gain or lose by relaying what they heard, saw or didn't see. NO ONE I know saw planes. They did see and hear explosions but they didn't hear what sounded like a plane traveling overhead.

I will agree obviously that innocent people died as acceptable losses for an unpublished agenda and it is a terrible thing, but I believe the effect of the act is worse in that it is treason most foul by the government. Hopefully one day, before the perpetrators are dead of natural causes in their comfy beds, the proof will actually come out and all these crimes, not only 9/11, will see the light of day. I think we can agree on that.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

How can you possibly say this with any certainty??
To me I haven't seen crash site one yet.
Unless you consider a bomb hole a crash site???
If there can be that one. Then why can't there be another one where the earth just swallowed it up all but the papers?
They need to ultra sound across the entire state of PA.
Shoot they will likely find all the aircraft thought to be lost in the Bermuda Triangle. Soft dirt in PA oh,oh only in that one tiny special place.
Nothing to see here folks just one of a zillion 911 COINCIDENCES.
911 the farce of the century, Only 88 years left to beat the record.
ljb

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

There was only one crash site. There were not two crash sites.

Yes you are correct, there were two debris sites.

The FBI explained it very well, I also hope it stops this type of questioning

If he is correct, how about you change your title to two United 93 debris sites instead of crashsites?

You start with mis information directly in your title, so sorry but call this a bogus post.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by pupetmaster

 

By the way - there is no "shot down theory". Thats just a little twisted fairy tale made up by all the conspiracist. In order to be a theory there has to some reference to some factual observation.

This coming from someone like you who lives on this forum, I'd think you know how wrong you are because a pilot has admitted to shooting sidewinder missiles at the plane, and another pilot admits to witnessing it. Hence the theory that the plane was shot down.
www.infowars.com...

Also, a number of witnesses' accounts coincide with a mid-air explosion:
www.flight93crash.com...

And finally, physics backs up the mid air explosion theory because that's the only possible way the debris would have been able to reach as far away from the crash site as it did.

reply to post by maxella1


I see people time and time again trying to argue whether or not 9/11 was more than what they are saying in the 9/11 commission. This video presented to us isnt really an issue....regardless how many times Bill Crowley trips over his words. The very real issue pertaining to flight 93 is....well where is it? I mean you have a mark that is a perfect outline of a plane, you have small debris (much like the debris found at the pentagon, but thats another subject in itself), but you have literally no plane...so in response to your question following your post about having any questions, thats mine debunk this...please I really would like to hear what you guys have to say about houdini returning from the grave and performing perhaps his greatest trick yet...or something along the lines of that, am I close?


-TrollerTrollzo

Upon further review of the information attained via visuals, it can be deduced that there was indeed an explosion compromising the plane/occupant material integrity pre-impact.

This can be proven upon the comparison between the Flight 93 impact and any other impact of the same make.

Although jet fuel can potentially incinerate most of the hull material, the fireball created does not burn long enough to produce such a minimal debris event.

Loose plane material should have been scattered with high density around the main impact area, which we do not see in the provided videos.

Scattered material found significantly off course, also affirms that there was a pre-impact event which dispersed the material.

Either a jet shot the plane down or the highjackers snuck an explosive charge on board capable of igniting the fuselage.

Either way, the FBI and the associated investigative agencies are too conservative with their findings.

reply to post by maxella1


The match isen't quite over yet, two civilian airplanes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport that morning and were ferried over to the NASA Glenn which is a whole distinct part of the airport with very large hangers and space out front for planes.

FLt 93 with 37 passenges at 10;10 am and Delta 1989 at 10:45 am with 69 passengers and at approx 11:15 200 passengers from Nasa Glen were put on a military bus and driven away. I have flown on KC 135's and it wasen't one of the planes.

There were Nasa employees working there at the time and we saw the whole thing. I hope one day to see those responsible get whats coming to them.

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by pupetmaster

 

By the way - there is no "shot down theory". Thats just a little twisted fairy tale made up by all the conspiracist. In order to be a theory there has to some reference to some factual observation.

This coming from someone like you who lives on this forum, I'd think you know how wrong you are because a pilot has admitted to shooting sidewinder missiles at the plane, and another pilot admits to witnessing it. Hence the theory that the plane was shot down.
www.infowars.com...

Also, a number of witnesses' accounts coincide with a mid-air explosion:
www.flight93crash.com...

And finally, physics backs up the mid air explosion theory because that's the only possible way the debris would have been able to reach as far away from the crash site as it did.

edit on 4/18/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)

No pilot has "admitted to shooting sidewinder missiles at the plane." Your story is based on what someone with the improbable name of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre claimed on the Alex Jones show. He also has a whole raft of other spurious assertions which are of course contained in the book he was trying to sell.

The Air National Guard have refuted the allegation by pointing out that the supposed pilot Rick Gibney was actually busy elsewhere that morning of 9/11. He flew from Fargo, North Dakota to Bozeman, Montana to collect Ed Jacoby and ferry him to New York. Ed Jacoby has confirmed that he and Rick Gibney were together at the time UA 93 went down :-

www.oilempire.us...

There is zero evidence for a shoot-down and plenty against. The recovered flight data recorder indicates all systems functioning until impact which would obviously not be the case if it was shot down.. The recovered cockpit voice recorder gives no indication of a shoot- down, quite the contrary, it indicates the hi-jackers themselves deliberately put the plane down. The list of witnesses you linked to do not support your case as several refer to seeing the plane at low level , shortly before impact, in one piece. There is no reason light debris could not have travelled on the wind several miles from the crash site. UA 93 is not unique in that regard.

Finally, I do not get why there is a determination with some truthers , against all the evidence, to insist on a shoot-down for UA 93. If it was true why would it be denied ? We have the silly situation where it is a fiendish inside job because none of the planes was intercepted and also a fiendish inside job where one was.

Originally posted by trollertrollzo
reply to post by maxella1

 

I see people time and time again trying to argue whether or not 9/11 was more than what they are saying in the 9/11 commission. This video presented to us isnt really an issue....regardless how many times Bill Crowley trips over his words. The very real issue pertaining to flight 93 is....well where is it? I mean you have a mark that is a perfect outline of a plane, you have small debris (much like the debris found at the pentagon, but thats another subject in itself), but you have literally no plane...so in response to your question following your post about having any questions, thats mine

debunk this...please I really would like to hear what you guys have to say about houdini returning from the grave and performing perhaps his greatest trick yet...or something along the lines of that, am I close?

-TrollerTrollzo

Your expectations of what should left after a high speed impact into the ground are simply unrealistic. Have a look at this video about Flight 1771 which has many parallels with UA 93 :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by itsfarworse
reply to post by maxella1

 

The match isen't quite over yet, two civilian airplanes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport that morning and were ferried over to the NASA Glenn which is a whole distinct part of the airport with very large hangers and space out front for planes.

FLt 93 with 37 passenges at 10;10 am and Delta 1989 at 10:45 am with 69 passengers and at approx 11:15 200 passengers from Nasa Glen were put on a military bus and driven away. I have flown on KC 135's and it wasen't one of the planes.

There were Nasa employees working there at the time and we saw the whole thing. I hope one day to see those responsible get whats coming to them.

The story that UA 93 put down at Cleveland was retracted the same day. One of the many false stories arising from that confusing morning.

The story pre-supposes that UA 93 was invisible until it suddenly arrived and landed at Cleveland. In fact it was under observation by Cleveland Air Traffic Control and other aircraft in it's vicinity until just before it crashed a long way from Cleveland. The ATC tapes are available as here :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle



Because by shooting down a "real" plane that's going out-of-service and operating under drone-like control with no passengers or pilots, you support the story of the three other missiles, err, I mean planes. It's an easy and cheap way to float the "story" you want everyone to believe.

Cheers - Dave

edit on 4/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

There's no actual evidence for that though, is there? You've just plucked a story out of the air that fits in with your fantasies.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If the plane was shot down doesn't that make an inside job even more unlikely? Why would the conspirators shoot down their own plane?

Because by shooting down a "real" plane that's going out-of-service and operating under drone-like control with no passengers or pilots, you support the story of the three other missiles, err, I mean planes. It's an easy and cheap way to float the "story" you want everyone to believe.

Cheers - Dave

So one plane three missiles?

That's what I figure and the plane was not occupied. I believe there were a large number of victims in the actual twin towers however. It's a lot like the Titanic, kill a lot of birds with one stone, it's a switch and play. Think about it, what were the upsides?

1. Whoever was in charge got rid of a bunch of stock brokers and bankers all of whom were not from that not-to-be-named middle eastern fiefdom on the Mediterranean.
2. Silverberg or Silverstein or whatever that troll's name was, was having serious problems maintaining the WTC, to the tune of a million dollars a day. Seems they had a serious asbestos problem and the asbestos had to be removed. Oh, and he put terrorism insurance on the building 6 weeks before 9/11. By getting his buddy GW to blame terrorists, he got to pull the buildings (demolition), not get blamed for the mess or the huge number of respiratory cancers that are going to show up in NYC in the next few years and he got to collect ALL the insurance money. What a sweet deal huh?
3. The bankers got to put in play the beginning of final solution under the auspices of a foreign attack. The US now has the equivalent of the KGB, loss of rights and freedoms, accelerating inflation, kangaroo courts and in-your-face puppet governments.
4. The pentagon misplaced 2.2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money stated on national TV Sept 10 the day before 9/11, all the evidence of which, just happened to be in that area of the pentagon hit by the missile, err, I mean plane. Kind of hard to prosecute a case of corruption with no evidence...

So some bankers control the world through nefarious means and secret conspiracies. But other bankers - including all major insurance companies - do not and are excluded. Somehow these bankers were persuaded to rent offices in the upper floors of the WTC and were then murdered by missiles disguised as planes.

Makes sense.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by maxella1

That's what I figure and the plane was not occupied. I believe there were a large number of victims in the actual twin towers however. It's a lot like the Titanic, kill a lot of birds with one stone, it's a switch and play. Think about it, what were the upsides?

1. Whoever was in charge got rid of a bunch of stock brokers and bankers all of whom were not from that not-to-be-named middle eastern fiefdom on the Mediterranean.
2. Silverberg or Silverstein or whatever that troll's name was, was having serious problems maintaining the WTC, to the tune of a million dollars a day. Seems they had a serious asbestos problem and the asbestos had to be removed. Oh, and he put terrorism insurance on the building 6 weeks before 9/11. By getting his buddy GW to blame terrorists, he got to pull the buildings (demolition), not get blamed for the mess or the huge number of respiratory cancers that are going to show up in NYC in the next few years and he got to collect ALL the insurance money. What a sweet deal huh?
3. The bankers got to put in play the beginning of final solution under the auspices of a foreign attack. The US now has the equivalent of the KGB, loss of rights and freedoms, accelerating inflation, kangaroo courts and in-your-face puppet governments.
4. The pentagon misplaced 2.2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money stated on national TV Sept 10 the day before 9/11, all the evidence of which, just happened to be in that area of the pentagon hit by the missile, err, I mean plane. Kind of hard to prosecute a case of corruption with no evidence...

So, what is that, take down a few buildings and get 10 things done worth trillions of dollars at the same time? They're getting ambitious or seriously exploitative, with the Titanic they only covered a couple of bases. I've seen this done before and I have performed the investigation of past events that I followed closely for personal reasons (the Helderberg 1987, 159 dead, they tried to kill my CO, a couple of MI ops died, one engineer involved in the development of the false VOR beacon that killed Machel died and of course weapons grade raw materials for SAMS and EMP weapons for the Angolan war disappeared into CIA hands actually).

When there are a series of problems or targets and there is one solution to removes all the problems or targets at the same time, the sweeter the action and the higher the probability of a single solution scenario. Remember the seal team and bin Laden, hmmm, all of them died in helicopter crash? What are the chances of that?

As it says in my sig below, my CO used to tell me, once is happenstance, twice coincidence and three times is enemy action.

ETA - One more thing, NONE of the official story makes sense to any of the people like me that I know, from laypeople, tradespeople, etc. to engineers and physicists who worked in weapons research or the intel community (I happen to be one of those). If the government had real information/videos, they would have produced them IMMEDIATELY to garner REAL public support. The problem is you can't fake that many victims and videos, altering all the information after the fact (that their/government missiles hit their targets). Plus if you consider all the media slips from White House spokesmen stating missiles and then correcting themselves and all the other news video and the way it was presented, you pretty much have to come to the conclusion that 9/11 is Alice In BunglerLand gone seriously bad.

Cheers - Dave

edit on 4/17.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: The ETA

Hi,
Would you conjure that the flt 93 fiasco is a direct take off from the Northwoods
senerio?? The one where school kids are taken off planes in hidden places and the plane switched with a drone to be shot down by the USA and blamed on Cuba.
What low life bumbs they were.
ljb

Pretty simple actually.. but first you must throw out the garbage story the MSM has been pushing since day 1.

The only way you find the fuselage and engine 6 miles apart is due to the engine breaking off the plane in mid flight.. how does this happen? It was hit with a missile, broke off, and landed 6 miles from the rest of the plane.

It is no more complicated than that.

reply to post by brigand

Pretty simple actually.. but first you must throw out the garbage story the MSM has been pushing since day 1.

Yeah, thats right - throw it all away. Then you can simply make up anything you like, kind of like this:

The only way you find the fuselage and engine 6 miles apart is due to the engine breaking off the plane in mid flight.. how does this happen? It was hit with a missile, broke off, and landed 6 miles from the rest of the plane.

It is no more complicated than that.

Yep, that was pretty easy.

Originally posted by brigand
Pretty simple actually.. but first you must throw out the garbage story the MSM has been pushing since day 1.

The only way you find the fuselage and engine 6 miles apart is due to the engine breaking off the plane in mid flight.. how does this happen? It was hit with a missile, broke off, and landed 6 miles from the rest of the plane.

It is no more complicated than that.

Please show us your evidence for fuselage and engine 6 miles apart, thanks.