16th anniversary of the biggest conspiracy to date

The wreckage in Shanksville would look different from other plane crashes because it was going so fast when it hit the ground. In other plane crashes, most of the time the pilot is trying his best to skid across the land and at least attempt to minimize the damage enough to save their life.

According to Phillip Marshal, the flight 93 voice recorder picked up the sound of the beverage cart slamming into the cockpit door. The hijackers said in arabic "should we finish it" then they took a nose dive and shouted allah akbar. All four planes were supposed to be hijacked so that they would all hit their targets in a short period of time. But flight 93 was really late and off schedule. They might not have made it to DC before the door was smashed in, so they took a nose dive. It was going 500 mph when it hit the ground so it's going to look different than a wreck where the pilot was trying to crash land at like 100 mph. I don't think it got shot down either because debris would have been more scattered.

There is a new FBI video out with unseen photos of the crash site and sound bites from the CVR.

As to my inherent lack of knowledge in plane crashes;

What brings alot of my attention to Shanksville, is the scene, and how it looks nothing like any other plane crash I've ever seen.

Even with the relatively large size of the 747, there's not enough inertia to be converted into the energy required to "vaporize" the heavy metal in engine components or the giant turbines themselves.

My grandfather was in a Liberator in the second biggun' and so I grew up looking into them alot. I've seen a plethora of images of inverted crashes, shot down planes, plane collisions, intentional groundings, you name it. I have yet to see one single plane crash where there is not a single piece of overly large debris in the immediate area.

If I were a physics expert, I would break down the weight of the engines, the energy needed to throw them any distance, the angle at which it would have happened, and yadda yadda, but alas. I'm but a chef.

And with that- I go to work. I'll check back in afterwards, and possibly during service.

originally posted by: Iconic

Even with the relatively large size of the 747, there's not enough inertia to be converted into the energy required to "vaporize" the heavy metal in engine components or the giant turbines themselves.

Flt 93 was a 757-200 not a 747.

Both engines were found. The Starboard engine was found in the crater and a large portion of the port main fan was found in a retention pond and the port engine was found in the woods beyond the pond.

a reply to: Iconic

So? you are just going ignore the fact the truth movement relies on misquotes, quotes out of context, and ignoring evidence to create false narratives?

Still waiting on an explanation on what remains were released to families for internment?

www.post-gazette.com...

By the spring of 2002, all families of Flight 93 victims received some remains that were identified as their loved ones, said Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller.

a reply to: Iconic

An awesome link on prima facie that may apply here.....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Iconic

An awesome link on prima facie that may apply here.....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's a good post. Thanks

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: neutronflux
Hey, let's starts with the lies of the truth movement.

False claims of thermite with experiments never performed in an inert atmosphere. Experiments who's results were never reproduce.

Results improperly published and peer reviewed in a pay for pay magazine

You know that's been explained many times. They didn't perform the tests in an inert atmosphere because LLNL didn't perform their tests in an inert atmosphere. They wanted to compare the results.

Showing "thermite" burned in dust samples collected by mail years after 9/11 in an inert atmosphere would prove the presence of thermite, Funny jones never conducted the experiment. Didn't individuals that were pushing the thermite claim they would conduct the experiments in an inert atmosphere. Where are those results published?

You've missed the point. LLNL conducted experiments with nanothermite igniting it in a normal atmosphere. Jones replicated the experiment to compare results.

Yeah.

And it didn't come close to matching.

They even admitted themselves that some of the heat came from combustion and not any thermxte products.

The question is, how much came from combustion? Nobody knows for sure until the test is done under inert gas.

Therefore thermxte is most definitely NOT proven, until that question is answered.

originally posted by: Iconic

The crash on the coast; as you said, they were able to find the gun, with the fingers still on it. An airsickness bag, and without looking it up, based on an admittedly rudimentary knowledge of physics, they probably were able to find the majority of the engines and a good portion in total of the fuselage or wings/tail section.

.

Nope.

Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Like I said, honest research proves your uninformed hunches wrong.

Are you learning yet?

a reply to: kurthall

Yes but human beings are horrible witnesses and even more so in high stress situations...and 2 planes had just hit the towers it doesn't get more high stress than that.




The real question is why pull off that big of an operation, when you could have pulled off far easier scemes and still have the same result..

I think this is just PHASE II of the original when they offed Kennedy.
Hillary was III

Just curious, at one time there was a pic from google earth from before the crash the showed a crater that resembled the one that is in all the pics, looking like the wings cut the earth, etc. Was this proven fake?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Iconic

9/11 and Niel Degrass Tyson taught me my conspiracy theory litmus test...


Befire you buy into any conspiracy. Ask yourself if you can think of an easier , cheaper and less risky way to achieve the same proposed goal...

If 911 was staged as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, could they have come up with an easier excuse for the war??

Wouldn't blowing up a daycare in a hand full of states on the same day achieve the same goal for pittance of what staging 911 would cost???

The idea and concept are good, but they may not apply in this case.
Reverse the goal: before you buy-in to the so-called official story; would it not have been also easier for the terrorists to achieve their goals, by doing something simpler?

The results of 9/11 were numerous and varied, and achieved more than just getting the public to accept another dishonest war.

originally posted by: boredhere74
Just curious, at one time there was a pic from google earth from before the crash the showed a crater that resembled the one that is in all the pics, looking like the wings cut the earth, etc. Was this proven fake?

They weren't in the same place.

Well, after looking through some evidence posted herein, it seems that a few posters were right, in that I had a few (possibly more) key elements that were either confused, or I neglected to do proper research for.

Although name calling, and ad-hominem comments are a great way to convince someone they're mistaken, the data itself is what does it for me.

I hadn't heard that larger parts of the engine were in fact found- the biggest part of this crash for me was the fact that I had believed the opposite.

Thanks for giving some good info, guys.

And thanks for not derailing any longer, as well

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: neutronflux

Not sure what you're on about.

Nanothermite was found in dust around the city by numerous different independent researchers, who were not paid for their work.

Off topic much?

Can you cite or link to those tests?

Can you cite or link where Jones published results for testing his WTC dust in an inert atmosphere?

originally posted by: Iconic


Although name calling, and ad-hominem comments.....

Can you quote from this thread where individuals were "name calling"......

originally posted by: Iconic
As to my inherent lack of knowledge in plane crashes;

What brings alot of my attention to Shanksville, is the scene, and how it looks nothing like any other plane crash I've ever seen.

Even with the relatively large size of the 747, there's not enough inertia to be converted into the energy required to "vaporize" the heavy metal in engine components or the giant turbines themselves.

My grandfather was in a Liberator in the second biggun' and so I grew up looking into them alot. I've seen a plethora of images of inverted crashes, shot down planes, plane collisions, intentional groundings, you name it. I have yet to see one single plane crash where there is not a single piece of overly large debris in the immediate area.

If I were a physics expert, I would break down the weight of the engines, the energy needed to throw them any distance, the angle at which it would have happened, and yadda yadda, but alas. I'm but a chef.

And with that- I go to work. I'll check back in afterwards, and possibly during service.

So true. The official story demands that the airliner was vaporized, and that is absurd and impossible.

The reason nobody could find any debris consistent with a crashed 757 in Shanksville is because there was no crashed 757 in Shanksville.

And to corroborate that is the ACARS information, discovered years ago, that shows the aircraft to still be communicating in the ACARS system 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in PA, transmitting somewhere in Illinois.

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com Back in October 2012

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: kurthall

Yes but human beings are horrible witnesses and even more so in high stress situations...and 2 planes had just hit the towers it doesn't get more high stress than that.




The real question is why pull off that big of an operation, when you could have pulled off far easier scemes and still have the same result..


To find the answer to that question, you must ask one of those who planned the operation from the beginning. I doubt very much anybody posting here was involved in the planning or execution.

a reply to: Iconic

And, not being a commercial pilot nor a plane expert, I could only guess that cruising speed is higher than a speed gained at a low elevation as what was reported with flight 93

Flight 93 headed straight for the ground. Crashed head first.

When throw a ball downwards and throw another horizontally which one gains more speed?