The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

Originally posted by re22666
i came here with questions but an open mind
now i see nothing but closed minded people that already hate anyone they even think might disagree.

Thats why i always like to try to get people to do research. I show the research i have done.

Problem is you have people who want to live in a safe fantasy worls and not face the relality of what really goes on.

@re22666:

You're not on my ignore list!

There will never be one fact that demonstrates Flight 93 didn't crash there. As with any crime scene (which it is, any way you slice it), it's the body of evidence that proves or disproves a theory.

If you weigh up the evidence supporting no Flight 93, vs. the evidence that does, then you sub-divide that evidence and weight it on its merits, you can reasonably conclude what happened. We're at a point with Flight 93 now where it is starting to be quite feasible to do that.

People can argue "look - there is plane debris!" but the fact of the matter is that it was never proven. It's a crime scene folks. They should absolutely know it is Flight 93. The fact they didn't look is highly suspicious.

At this point may I direct your attention to my thread on the Anthrax? Strange that considering sone broke into a secure US lab, stole Anthrax spores, then proceeded to mail them to no less than members of Congress, nothing is being done. It didn't even make the news beyond the day it actually occurred.

In-action speaks as loudly as any action. The same applies to Flight 93, the Pentagon etc...

The WTC couldn't be ignored the same way because too many people witnessed it, but it seems no-one witnessed the Pentagon, and very few (if any) credible witnesses saw Flight 93. These are easy to bury, and few are interested in finding out the truth.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
i came here with questions but an open mind
now i see nothing but closed minded people that already hate anyone they even think might disagree.

Thats why i always like to try to get people to do research. I show the research i have done.

Problem is you have people who want to live in a safe fantasy worls and not face the relality of what really goes on.

no the problem is people like you that are on the same side of the argument, story, issue, whatever you call it and yet you want to fight with everyone for no reason.

Originally posted by re22666
no the problem is people like you that are on the same side of the argument, story, issue, whatever you call it and yet you want to fight with everyone for no reason.

Why are you attacking me?

I have posted lots of facts and evidence on here to show the research i have done.

reply to post by darkbluesky


Why did you modify Ivan's graphic? Ivan's flight path looked to be inline with the one that I remember from Popular Mechanics that you guys used to love to quote so much. Is that unreliable now? What is your source for the flight path you are claiming?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

Why did you modify Ivan's graphic? Ivan's flight path looked to be inline with the one that I remember from Popular Mechanics that you guys used to love to quote so much. Is that unreliable now? What is your source for the flight path you are claiming?

Where is the Popular Mechanics version?

If you look at the NTSB document TY linked to, and correctly orientate the map, you'll see that the aircraft was heading approx. 150.

A quick note for you regarding aircraft: if you *push* whilst in a turn, it doesn't turn very well.

IIRC even the FDR from Flight 93 shows a hard push over with a roll to the right. Doing this actually means the aircraft hardly turns at all, despite being on a knife-edge for example.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

There will never be one fact that demonstrates Flight 93 didn't crash there. As with any crime scene (which it is, any way you slice it), it's the body of evidence that proves or disproves a theory.

If you weigh up the evidence supporting no Flight 93, vs. the evidence that does, then you sub-divide that evidence and weight it on its merits, you can reasonably conclude what happened. We're at a point with Flight 93 now where it is starting to be quite feasible to do that.

People can argue "look - there is plane debris!" but the fact of the matter is that it was never proven. It's a crime scene folks. They should absolutely know it is Flight 93. The fact they didn't look is highly suspicious.

Your first two paragraphs are right on.

Your third paragraph...[borat] not so much [/borat]

What was never proven? There were thousands of pounds of plane debris, including a CVR and FDR.

This, along with the hundreds of pounds of human remains that matched those that were listed on flight 93 show what flight crashed there.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Why are you attacking me?

I have posted lots of facts and evidence on here to show the research i have done.

i was askng you to explain why you were attacking me. i think i asked several times. i also asked you to show me what i said that made you come after me to begin with. i came to this board because i dont believe the 'official' story, and i get to watch you fight with people that disagree with both you and myself, and then you turn it on me. i want proof that any of the things the gov't says happend when all evidence points the other way. if you have a point to counter that with, fine. if not, you ought to just leave me out of your posts. be angry at yogurt and boone for being water carriers for this corrupt admin. not peopele that want the same as you. you ask now, why i am attacking you? go back and see how many times i asked what you were attacking me for. got any more messages for me, U2U me. dont waste space here attacking people, agreeing with them, attacking them some more, attacking them, then crying - stop attaacking me. stick to 9/11 and you might be safe from getting attacks from both sides of the truth movement.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


Your first two paragraphs are right on.

Your third paragraph...[borat] not so much [/borat]

What was never proven? There were thousands of pounds of plane debris, including a CVR and FDR.

This, along with the hundreds of pounds of human remains that matched those that were listed on flight 93 show what flight crashed there.

then where is this proof? these body remains, these plane parts. from what i can find, they cannot even say for sure that any plane parts they found came from that flight. so they found plane parts, cannot 100% identify what plane they came from but they id'd all the passengers. ok. fine. makes sense. where is that then. where is the coroner discussing all this collected DNA. where are his samples, what kinds of samples were collected from a mostly empty field that had no bodies in it according to the first coroner there.

Originally posted by re22666

i came here with questions but an open mind
now i see nothing but closed minded people that already hate anyone they even think might disagree. if anything is to come from 9/11, it will not happen here. so many bullies here want to just repeat their opinion as fact and if you dont agree, the jam it down your throat.

Re22666,

Glad you're here. Don't be to dismayed at certain characters, everyone on both sides of the issue adds something to the debate by challenging and responding issue by issue. Some characters get heated, some are redundant, some are sarcastic (me), some are humorous, etc. But in the end, stupid ideas get flushed, and good ones survive to be debated.

Glad you have an open mind. Many here do not. We should all question what happened on 9/11 and why. My personal opinion ( which I have made clear numerous times) is that 9/11 was a "false flag" type of event, either perpetrated by secret factions within the US government, or known of before hand, and allowed to occur with out intervention.

Why?
To acheive the things that have occured since:

1) Huge permanent US military presence in the middle east
2) Installing a pro-US government in Iraq
3) Increased military spending
4) Exert more control over the worlds most critical oil reserves

Where I differ from the "no planes" "controlled demolition" hogwash, is that I beleive what appered to happen (4 airplanes hijacked and crashed into high visibility and symbolic targets) was what really happened.

Either Al Queda had this plan and certain players in the US govt knew about it and let it happen, or the same factions directly enlisted arab Martyrs to do it.

But think about this. If the US govt wanted this to happen, would they go to all the extreme crazy measures most of the conspiracy believers claim? Remote controlled airplanes, planted evidence, explosives, cruise missiles, controlled demolition, holograms, decoy aircraft, etc, etc.?

or

Would they just crash the airplanes?

Logic says they would just crash the airplanes. Why not? They were committed to killing all the people on the ground at the WTC, Pentagon, and wherever UA 93 was headed. They were commited to killing all the US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians who would die in the following "war on terror". Why not sacrifice 4 planes loads of people also?

The crazy theories of no airplanes don't make sense. The powers behind pulling this off were certainly smart enough to know that they should execute the simplest plan..the plan with the highest liklihood of success, the plan without the hundered of flaws that some of us internet addicts point out again and again.

9/11 was a conspiracy, it was executed by, or allowed to occur, by factions within our government. They convinced 20 or so Arab martyrs to crash the airplanes for cash payments to their families or Alqeda, or they paid Alqeda directly and had BinLaden or Shiek Mohammad convince the martyrs to crash to the plane.

Either this, or they knew of AlQuedas plans, and just let it happen knowing what benefits they would reap in the aftermath...see above.

Think about it.

I think I'll expand this essay and start a new thread.

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Re22666,

Glad you're here. Don't be to dismayed at certain characters, everyone on both sides of the issue adds something to the debate by challenging and responding issue by issue. Some characters get heated, some are redundant, some are sarcastic (me), some are humorous, etc. But in the end, stupid ideas get flushed, and good ones survive to be debated.

Glad you have an open mind. Many here do not. We should all question what happened on 9/11 and why. My personal opinion ( which I have made clear numerous times) is that 9/11 was a "false flag" type of event, either perpetrated by secret factions within the US government, or known of before hand, and allowed to occur with out intervention.


Think about it.

I think I'll expand this essay and start a new thread.

nah, thanks but im all done thinking about this here. with people like ultima around arguing with truthers and debunkers alike, even attacking people with his same thoughts for no reason...that's too much nonsense. i like to think that the bad ideas get flushed but the mojority of the posts are inconsistant bickering back and forth and then there are sooo many people that do not read what they respond to because they are so eager to fight. i guess this place is only good for ufo and bigfoot stories

[edit on 7/26/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Here is the link you requested. It's hosted on killtown's website, I know he's not credible to debunkers, but he does have a link to popular mechanic's where it was sourced from. It even shows where an engine part was found that is inline with Ivan's graphic and not inline with darkbluesky's.

Another thing that is not discussed to often is the angle of the crash of alleged flight 93. The NTSB states that the plane struck the ground at 40 degrees inverted yet there was no deflection or displacement of dirt.

Picture a plane doing 560mph, upside down, hitting really soft dirt at a 40 degree angle..... Now look at this pic. . ...
Moments after the "crash". No plane, no fire, nothing. See the Flight path?



As far as the arguments about the 'official flight path'. Paul, an ex-marine, 2nd day on the job at a scrap yard witnesses the plane '50ft' above him at the scrap yard which is right under the red arrow in the picture above.

Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."
But did he see another plane? "Yes, there was another plane," Lee said. "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon."

"Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.
"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.
"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.
"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.
I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.
"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.
"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.
"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.
"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."
Mrs Mcelwain, who looks after special needs children, is further convinced the whole truth has yet to come out because of a phone call she had within hours from the wife of an air force friend of the family.
"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don't believe what happened on the plane brought it down.
"If they shot it down, or something else happened, everyone, especially the victims' families, have a right to know."

killtown.911review.org...

Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 Aftermath

"Barry Lichty, a US Navy veteran and mayor of Indian Lake Borough (just to the east of where Flight 93 crashes), is watching television with his wife. He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile. ... Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor. My first reaction, as a former utility employee, was that maybe someone shot a missile into the substation.” He says Flight 93 “did not come over my house. I don’t know what we heard.” -

killtown.911review.org...

Homes, neighbors rattled by crash

"Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.
“I heard the engine whine and scream,” Stop said.
He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball."

killtown.911review.org...

► 9-11 Mysteries Remain

"While specific details vary, the explanation for the disappearance of the plane is that the reclaimed land acted like liquid and absorbed the aircraft, which is said to have impacted at between 450 and 600 miles per hour.
This explanation is also used to explain why there was only a brief explosion with one short-lived smoke cloud, not unlike a bomb blast.
“I never saw that smoke,” Paula Long, an eyewitness, told AFP. Long ran “immediately” after hearing the crash but did not see the cloud of smoke caught in the now-famous photograph by Valencia McClatchey, she said." -

killtown.911review.org...



No one saw a Boeing 757. They were told it was a Boeing 757, but they did not see one. They did see unmarked military jets tho propably involved in cruise missile interception or plane crash simulation.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by IvanZana]

Ivan, instead of spamming this thread with Killtown B.S. Why don't you offer up some of "ALL the experts "that agree with you.

??? Been waiting an awful long time since you made and repeated that statement.

And while your at it, please let us know why missiles have seat belts.

Thank you

:TY:

As you can see, it is impossible for a Boeing 757 to have made that small 10x30 foot crater.

In this next photo you will see that the small crater does not show any evidence of a plane or fuel being present. . Also, the grass is not even burnt. There is no evidence of a Boeing 757 crashing there.

Images provided by flight93hoax.blogspot.com... . Read more there.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by IvanZana]

Tell everyone you know about the fact that no airplane crashed in Shanksville. See post above.


It was proven impossible for a being 757 to have crashed in Shanksville/somerset county on 911.

reply to post by IvanZana


I see you still refuse to answer questions to your posts.
Are you planning on backing up your statements?

"I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side.

50 ft at 45°??? It should have crashed virtually at his feet then.

This witness is no witness at all...

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Or this witness was mistaken when he stated 50ft.

Are you saying he is lying?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

Or this witness was mistaken when he stated 50ft.

Are you saying he is lying?

If he was a Marine, he'd know better...

(Not a one-liner).