Wonder why there were two United 93 crash sites?

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.

Hi bri
So do you also beleive the phone call were made?
You know the ones "Let's roll".
cheers ljb

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.

Except you're forgetting that engine parts were also found miles away from the crash, which nothing short of a tornado would have been able to blow it there. Only in the twilight zone that 10mph wind is able to blow pieces of metal miles away. Take a physics class and get back to me. You're just embarrassing yourself here.

reply to post by bl4ke360

Except you're forgetting that engine parts were also found miles away from the crash

Which engine parts were those ....?

Farther part of any engine recovered was 300 yards downhill in catch pond - fan section (which fits in front of
actual jet engine) - it weighed 1000 lbs and rolled down the hill from crash scene

reply to post by maxella1


Anybody notice the expression on the Coroner Millers face when Crowley said that there were no military involvement?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by bl4ke360

 

Except you're forgetting that engine parts were also found miles away from the crash

Which engine parts were those ....?

Farther part of any engine recovered was 300 yards downhill in catch pond - fan section (which fits in front of
actual jet engine) - it weighed 1000 lbs and rolled down the hill from crash scene

Are you sure they didn't find it in a rabbit hole???
A thousand pound object rolls down the hill while bodies and seats and luggage and all go piercing deep into the ground. What a crock of KOOLAID.
You need to look at my Avatar and wake the heck up

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Have you ever seen a plane that's been shot down? Had a couple of AIMS launched into it or SAMS from the ground. I have. What hits the ground isn't a whole helluva lot. If you hit both engines, they are pretty much destroyed, the wings fracture, usually there's some form of fuselage stress that may or may not tear it apart.

Fantasy, I wish it was.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.

Except you're forgetting that engine parts were also found miles away from the crash, which nothing short of a tornado would have been able to blow it there. Only in the twilight zone that 10mph wind is able to blow pieces of metal miles away. Take a physics class and get back to me. You're just embarrassing yourself here.

You don't seem to have answered thedman's question so far as to what engine parts were found miles away.

Originally posted by Alfie1

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...

I dont even have to look at that video you posted. Its common knowledge to most that a plane literally doesnt disappear. Please dont give me a video of something completely different, I am not going to even consider watching something you deem credible when you sit there and try and tell me I am being unrealistic for implying that a complete 747 that weighs over 850,000lbs just simply disappears? I am sorry, I dont understand your logic nor do I understand AT ALL how I am being unrealistic for using my common sense. Again, my question remains, where did the plane go? I dont expect it all to be there, but I mean there isnt a wing, a tail, a cockpit, an engine, etc. You get me a picture of a somewhat destroyed plane and maybe Ill deem you a little more credible sir. Until then...



-TrollerTrollzo

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.

Yes it actually does, the same amount of sense actually that put bankers opposed to the development of the FED on the Olympia masquerading as the Titanic ;-) JP Morgan I think it was got the insurance money and a whole lot of opposition to the FED went away. But you concentrate on just the international bankers when 2.2 trillion dollars at the pentagon went missing the day before 9/11 as announced by Rumsfeld. Have we seen any investigation into where that taxpayer money miraculously disappeared? Survey says, NO! Plus, what happened to all that Canadian Gold that was in secure storage area of the WTC that was owned by Scotia Bank? It disappeared but no investigation there either. I guess the msm and bush were too busy whipping everyone into war frenzy to bother with little things like a few trillion dollars evaporating.

When the dirty tricks worked in the past, the government and their handlers use them over and over again.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by trollertrollzo

Originally posted by Alfie1

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...

I dont even have to look at that video you posted. Its common knowledge to most that a plane literally doesnt disappear. Please dont give me a video of something completely different, I am not going to even consider watching something you deem credible when you sit there and try and tell me I am being unrealistic for implying that a complete 747 that weighs over 850,000lbs just simply disappears? I am sorry, I dont understand your logic nor do I understand AT ALL how I am being unrealistic for using my common sense. Again, my question remains, where did the plane go? I dont expect it all to be there, but I mean there isnt a wing, a tail, a cockpit, an engine, etc. You get me a picture of a somewhat destroyed plane and maybe Ill deem you a little more credible sir. Until then...



-TrollerTrollzo

Well horse and water comes to mind. But perhaps others will not be so determined to avoid evidence and have a look at the video. There are many similarities to UA 93.

You can also help yourself by getting the plane right. It was not a Boeing 747 but a 757, considerable difference in size.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by trollertrollzo

Originally posted by Alfie1

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...

I dont even have to look at that video you posted. Its common knowledge to most that a plane literally doesnt disappear. Please dont give me a video of something completely different, I am not going to even consider watching something you deem credible when you sit there and try and tell me I am being unrealistic for implying that a complete 747 that weighs over 850,000lbs just simply disappears? I am sorry, I dont understand your logic nor do I understand AT ALL how I am being unrealistic for using my common sense. Again, my question remains, where did the plane go? I dont expect it all to be there, but I mean there isnt a wing, a tail, a cockpit, an engine, etc. You get me a picture of a somewhat destroyed plane and maybe Ill deem you a little more credible sir. Until then...



-TrollerTrollzo

Well horse and water comes to mind. But perhaps others will not be so determined to avoid evidence and have a look at the video. There are many similarities to UA 93.

You can also help yourself by getting the plane right. It was not a Boeing 747 but a 757, considerable difference in size.

Its not me being determined to avoid evidence, its simply me questioning you as a credible person to make an assumption that my perception on what I believe should be left after a plane crashes into a grassy, non-metallic (shouldnt be any explosions), field and is considerably reduced to almost nothing. And please refrain from using a "common" phrase that I have never heard of and cannot make any sense of. (horse and water?) And okay Ill watch the video if it makes you happy, but I know my opinion is going to remain the same as it is now.

This is why i think they mentioned 2 crash sites:

Obviously if there is plane debris miles apart from each other, the passengers on Flight 93 DIDNT heroically nose dive the plane. If they did.....there would be NO debris 6-8 miles away.

What does this mean? It creates another conspiracy....that possibly our military shot down Flight 93 to save more innocent lives.

Would the public understand and forgive our military for shooting down Flight 93 and lying about its "brave" passengers? Of course they would! What if the plane went on to kill hundreds, if not thousands of people?

Unfortunately, the public was too gullible to even question that much. The official story still stands......heroic passengers take down Boeing in Shanksville. What complete crap. How come passengers on the other planes couldnt do the same? They were too much of cowards to save the thousands of people in the WTC?

Everything about 9.11 destroys the human confidence and creates fear. The bright side is.......what is there to Fear if everything was fabricated?

Originally posted by holywar666
This is why i think they mentioned 2 crash sites:

Obviously if there is plane debris miles apart from each other, the passengers on Flight 93 DIDNT heroically nose dive the plane. If they did.....there would be NO debris 6-8 miles away.

What does this mean? It creates another conspiracy....that possibly our military show down Flight 93 to save more innocent lives.

Would the public understand and forgive our military for shooting down Flight 93 and lying about its "brave" passengers? Of course they would! What if the plane went on to kill hundreds, if not thousands of people?

Unfortunately, the public was too gullible to even question that much. The official story still stands......heroic passengers take down Boeing in Shanksville. What complete crap. How come passengers on the other planes couldnt do the same? They were too much of cowards to save the thousands of people in the WTC?

Everything about 9.11 destroys the human confidence and creates fear. The bright side is.......what is there to Fear if everything was fabricated?

The fabricators! They have all the marbles. At least for a little bit longer.
If they can step on NORAD's package. They got big feet.

reply to post by longjohnbritches

It's a fully plausible scenario, Northwoods seems the template. It is also interesting that it seems like every time there is a false flag, the government is on the scene running a "training exercise." This occurred with Oklahoma, the 93 WTC bombing, 9/11, the London Subway bombing, etc. It's just like planes blowing up, look at SwissAir, Pan Am 103, the Helderberg, the Rietbok, etc. I am sure there are a ton of them that I don't know something about. They plan their dirty little (big) tricks and then they execute them over and over again and people seem to just soak up the BS like they are giant apathetic sponges while people they may or may not know are just acceptable losses, it's just a little collateral damage.

I'd probably be the same way though (apathetic and blind), if I hadn't been involved with CI and the military as the guy who designed and built many "dirty tricks" and knew how they were going to be deployed. Or had my eyes opened to how much the US government influenced Saddam through the CIA and weapons sales provided by the US state department, to invade Kuwait (it was all a game, I know, I worked with the people who did the deal and I quit shortly thereafter). But unfortunately, people are now so busy just trying to stay alive they don't have the time to do the research and find out what is really going on in this world. So they rely heavily of the MSM because people are lazy and it's easy, and that's what the government counts on. The governments and their handlers DO NOT want a well informed citizenry that can think critically and solve their own problems. Who are you going to believe anyway, a talking head pulling down a million a year that was inserted in your world view 20 years ago, or some guy that's actually lived through the lies, a guy that the government paints with a wide brush as a risk to national security because he knows a lot of their dirty little secrets? I can prove that easily, you just have to read the letter from CSIS and the Privacy Commissioner in response to my FOIA request for my own information on me.

I'll tell you I grow weary of the fight. If I could could take the blue pill (from the matrix) and wake up in my bed and carry on a normal life, at this time I might just do it because it's a hard thankless battle to try and get the truth out to people so they can make informed decisions, rather than controlled ones.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by Alfie1


Okay so I watched your video. At first speculation, I honestly began to change my opion, I know, imagine that. But after googling that and there actually being a few posts here on ATS about the comparison, I have gathered all the information I needed to completely contradict everything about your theory. Now believe me, I am not here to offend you and nothing of the sort, I just am trying to get to the bottom of this, as I am sure you are so take what I am about to say for what its worth. Flight 1771 was a BAe 146 which weighs about 93000lbs at take off. Flight 93 as you know was a 757 and (as I stand corrected from earlier) weighs about 255,000lbs. Flight 1771 was at a much steeper angle as it crashed (10 degrees) opposed to flight 93's angle (60 degrees) and 1771's flight speed was much faster (something like 720mph) opposed to the slower of the 2 in flight 93. So, how does a larger plane leave less (nearly nothing) in the immediate crash area when a smaller craft hitting nearly vertical leave, MUCH more debris? I just dont understand.
Anyone reading these comments feel free to join in, I really am just trying to figure this out...

-TrollerTrollzo

Originally posted by trollertrollzo
Flight 1771 was at a much steeper angle as it crashed (10 degrees) opposed to flight 93's angle (60 degrees) and 1771's flight speed was much faster (something like 720mph) opposed to the slower of the 2 in flight 93. So, how does a larger plane leave less (nearly nothing) in the immediate crash area when a smaller craft hitting nearly vertical leave, MUCH more debris? I just dont understand.
Anyone reading these comments feel free to join in, I really am just trying to figure this out...

Flight 1771 and Flight 93 have one very important thing in common. Both are fake. Most likely done on staked out property, privately owned by the very wealthy.Both have a massively fabricated story line, and both lack any type of "disintegrated impact" footage.

But when the results come in, the public falls for these crashes everytime. I have a feeling they did this a LOT prior to 9/11. Mental conditioning and seeing how we re-act.

I will say this.. If the plane broke up in the air, regardless of how.. And hal the plane got swept away in the wind for 6 miles.. Wouldnt there have been bodies? From what I can recall, no real bodies were found. And they say the plane somehow got swept in the wind.. There should have been bodies in between the 2 sections. Right? I dont get it.. I still question that if an inside job.. If remote planes.. If shot down... Why shanksville? Why there? Whats there? The gov took a ton of acres from the locals after the crash. I read that its got old mines.. I wonder if perhaps they want somthing there, or perhaps to build something underground.. I dont get shanksville at all.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle


I'll tell you I grow weary of the fight. If I could could take the blue pill (from the matrix) and wake up in my bed and carry on a normal life, at this time I might just do it because it's a hard thankless battle to try and get the truth out to people so they can make informed decisions, rather than controlled ones.

Cheers - Dave

Well, keep up the good fight!
There are thousands/millions in the USA and world wide getting the message every second. Kinda like the new "Radio Free Europe"
It worked there It will work in the USA.
More returning VETS and youths are picking up the cause since twitter, face book and you tube.
You can tell by the Sunstine censorship of late. The more the REDS push the more the red/white/blue get it and push back.
Just look at the shills flag, he hee And then check the truther flags.
NO CONTEST. Slam dunk, Truthers!!!
Not to mention the work done by hackers and the like. Don't take the RED pill that's the COMMIE pill. LOL
It is I am here to tell ya.
the best ljb

I dont think there was a plane i dont care how hard it hit there will always be a tailwing left

Hello Everyone,
Just thought I would do some digging myself. Some of you claim "the wind" blew the debris. So, I decided to check on some facts and here they are.

The plane was flying south east that day. Debris was found 6 miles or so south east from the location according to the map on page 1 of this thread.

"The wind" however, was blowing 8mph NW that day according to this.[/ url]

[url=http://911review.org/brad.com/Woodybox/Plane_Swap_Over_Pennsylvania_Flight_93.html]And here is another map showing the flight pattern.






Hmm, that's kinda weird.