Flight 93 - Soft Shanksville soil and other nonsense...

Only two external walls were breached at the pentagon,the outer E ring and inner C ring the rest of the walls are interior. Look at your pentagon picture. Thats a roof between C and D not a road. This is an easy fact to verify. Please amend your paper.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Items normally located at the tail of the airplane were found in the crater

Oh this I can get but you have not elaborated on your original claim of the wreckage being 50 feet underneath the ground. At first you tell us that 50 foot of the plane compressed and now you are telling us that it only compressed into the crater and not 50 feet down below the crater.

So I would ask for you to be specific about exactly what you mean when you stated "They had to dig down 50 feet to recover the wreckage"

As for why I asked if you had any photos of the incident on 9/11 it is because clean up began immediately. If we want to examine the incident through photos then we should rely on the photos of the earliest taken wouldn't you agree?

And I would remind you that I do not have a book of airliner accidents and I would ask that you do not use any more ad hominem attacks. I told you before I have no such book. I will not tell you again.

reply to post by titorite

So I would ask for you to be specific about exactly what you mean when you stated "They had to dig down 50 feet to recover the wreckage"

I guess I will go back and edit that to read "50 feet to recover SOME OF the wreckage" since it is appearantly confusing you.

Did not realize I was going to be graded on grammar.

As for why I asked if you had any photos of the incident on 9/11 it is because clean up began immediately. If we want to examine the incident through photos then we should rely on the photos of the earliest taken wouldn't you agree?

There are plenty of photos available online.

And I would remind you that I do not have a book of airliner accidents and I would ask that you do not use any more ad hominem attacks. I told you before I have no such book. I will not tell you again

Then quit posting statements that make it look that way. Flight 93 is different from the large majority of airliner crashes, quit using logic that suggests its just the same as the rest.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Dewey, thank you for spending your time in writing your paper. I have to tell you, there are very few truthers that actually do anything outside reading truther websites and listening to the blow hole Alex Jones.

I am not educated in soil compactness etc. I will leave that to you. Couple of things I have issue with.

First of all. Did you happen to calculate the kinetic energy involved with the impact of Flight 93?

Flight 93 had a mass of 100,000Kg
It is traveling at 255 meters per second
The trench and crater are 2-3 meters deep(call it 3m)

If you do the math, you will see that the kinetic energy was equal too about 1484 pounds of TNT.

Here is a video of the detonation of 441 pounds of TNT:






Also to keep in mind, Flight 93 per the FDR that was found at the crash scene was reported as traveling at 580 mph (504 kts), or 850 feet per second, every bit as fast as a .45 round. So you have a 757 that impacted the ground as fast as a bullet fired from a .45 pistol. Such an impact into soft earth will twist and deform a solid lead .45 round. Now imagine that .45 round is actually a light frame covered with a thin aluminum skin.


One more thing. It appears to me that you are not familiar with the crash of flight 1771. To suggest there has never been another highspeed, nose down, commercial craft like flight 93 is a little naive. Please look into this crash and the similarities to flight 93. Yes there are differences, but you seem like a pretty open minded person. Make note of the crater and debris fields from both crashes.

Hi everybody,

Not a member with enough posts to start a thread but really REALLY really really want an answer to this:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

It was linked by Swampfox46_1999 near the bottom of page two on this thread.

M-CSP-00009600, and M-CSP-00009601, the fourth and fifth pics down, these photos are marked as Government Exhibit and I guess this means it is part of the evidence of the plane in Shanksville. In this thread people are making claim and counter-claim but could anyone please point out what these photos mean. The parts IMHO seem to be from a plane crash (or possibly planted) but are untouched in any major way by fire damage.

Power and Equality

By way of gaining more responses, I would like to add the arguments ( and hence argue-ees :puz in this thread have been awesome!!! Once I get enough kudos these pictures might be the source of my first thread

[edit on 22-6-2009 by yyyyyyyyyy]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I hate to break it to you, but that isnt the first, nor the last, time an airplane has dug a hole for itself on impact. Not even for an airliner. It doesnt happen often, because airliners rarely impact the ground at the angle flight 93 did, but it has happened. As for the "too many first times" Is there another time someone has launched an attack like that before? No. The whole day was a "first time".

Yes, but 'attacking' another country does not bend the normal laws of physics, like all the other 'firsts' appear to do...

There are countless cases of groups undertaking terrorist/military attacks on other nations - this is nothing new. I assume you mean 'exactly' like that? Planes into buildings? Do you mean that Japanese kamikaze attacks with planes are not the same either because they hit metal objects like ships and not metal objects like the WTC? Does the fact that the planes are a smaller scale make that much of a difference to the physics?

Originally posted by waypastvne
The AILERONS , FLAPS, SPOILERS, SLATS, VERTICAL STAB, RUDDER, HORIZONTAL STAB, AND ELEVATORS ARE ALL HONEYCOMB / CARBON FIBER CONSTRUCTION.

The sources I cite are from Jane's all the worlds aircraft. and Boeing's web site. There are other sources. Carbon fiber does shatter into very small peices on impact. The resin does burn away and leaves small peices of carbon cloth that can be carried aloft and drift with the wind. This information is easy to verify. Could you please amend your paper with these facts.

I am still reading your paper. I have some more comments. I've been to Perth and I've been to pennsylvania. Have you ever been out side of Oz?

I'm happy to change that the tailfin skin was carbon fibre, but going by your post, and the following diagram, it's safe to assume there's a lot of aluminium inside the wings and tail which are made up of aluminium, and is structural in nature?



I will amend the report on the weekend. I have to make final edits for a masters thesis which is due for binding on Friday, which (unfortunately) takes precedence...

I have travelled extensively outside of Australia. I have been through 28 states of the US, and spent just over 3 years living in Maryland (not too far from Pennsylvania, obviously), also across Canada, with just over a year in Toronto, and a couple of years living in London. I'm not sure where you're going with this?

Rewey

Originally posted by waypastvne
Only two external walls were breached at the pentagon,the outer E ring and inner C ring the rest of the walls are interior. Look at your pentagon picture. Thats a roof between C and D not a road. This is an easy fact to verify. Please amend your paper.

After further reading, I can change this. My understanding was that between the two rings is a covered walkway/outdoor area - not a proper roof. The external walls seen above the roof you mention continue all the way to the ground. This is why the corridors between the rings are still the only way to travel from one ring to the next. The following diagrams show the floor layout, with the 'rings' still marked...





Diagrams like this which show a connected area of floor space on the ground floor also show what I've been told are elevator columns, which (going by BCA requirements in Australia) are constructed in the same manner as exterior walls. This diagram shows the damage path heading right through 3 of these columns as well...



But this image shows something a little interesting. It seems that the majority of the columns (some of which would be designed to support the exterior walls above the roofed area between the rings) aren't broken or disconnected.



Given how many columns there are in the path of the damage, I think it would be very interesting to make a 3D model of these columns to see if there is a clear and unobstructed line of sight through the columns in the direction of the alleged plane travel. Surely, given that most of the columns are still in place, this would determine the likelihood that a piece of the plane managed to travel unimpeded all the way to the alleged 'exit hole'. I might knock something out on SketchUp this weekend. I think a lot of benefit could be had from a model like that.

With that aside, however, the report was based on the Shanksville crash. The Pentagon stuff was noted in the report as being completely off topic (a cheeky inclusion by me).

Anything to add regarding Flight 93 or the soil condition at the site? I'm more than happy to concede that the tail fin disintegrated on impact if someone from the OS side conceded my analysis of the soil is accurate, and that the notion it is 'soft' or 'loosely packed' is nonsense.

Rewey

reply to post by Rewey


The first floor of the outer three rings is continuous. Now, with the outer wall, they discovered something interesting when they started clearing rubble away. During the original construction of the Pentagon, in the haste to get the building done, the masons would stack 2-3 bricks before they put mortar down...then another 2-3 bricks...more mortar and so on...in other words, that outer wall was never as strong as people thought.

And for those so inclined, go to your local library and check out the book "Pentagon". It covers from the WW II construction up to the dedication of the rebuilt section.

The Pentagon Building Performance report
www.fire.nist.gov...

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey

 

The first floor of the outer three rings is continuous. Now, with the outer wall, they discovered something interesting when they started clearing rubble away. During the original construction of the Pentagon, in the haste to get the building done, the masons would stack 2-3 bricks before they put mortar down...then another 2-3 bricks...more mortar and so on...in other words, that outer wall was never as strong as people thought.

And for those so inclined, go to your local library and check out the book "Pentagon". It covers from the WW II construction up to the dedication of the rebuilt section.

Thanks for that report - I look forward to having a proper look at that this weekend. There doesn't seem to be anything in there about the mortar though. I find that extremely risky for a building which is 5 stories or so in height. Highly illegal, in fact. I find it hard to believe that it went unnoticed for so long...

Anyway - here we are back on the Pentagon. I'd appreciate it if this thread could stick with the soil analysis of the Shanksville site, as per the report. All Pentagon stuff in the report is noted as being well off topic...

Rewey

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey, thank you for spending your time in writing your paper. I have to tell you, there are very few truthers that actually do anything outside reading truther websites and listening to the blow hole Alex Jones.

I am not educated in soil compactness etc. I will leave that to you. Couple of things I have issue with.

First of all. Did you happen to calculate the kinetic energy involved with the impact of Flight 93?

Flight 93 had a mass of 100,000Kg
It is traveling at 255 meters per second
The trench and crater are 2-3 meters deep(call it 3m)

If you do the math, you will see that the kinetic energy was equal too about 1484 pounds of TNT.

One more thing. It appears to me that you are not familiar with the crash of flight 1771. To suggest there has never been another highspeed, nose down, commercial craft like flight 93 is a little naive. Please look into this crash and the similarities to flight 93. Yes there are differences, but you seem like a pretty open minded person. Make note of the crater and debris fields from both crashes.

Thanks CameronFox. To be honest, I've never seen or read anything by Alex Jones, but I've heard a lot of people talk about him. He seems a bit...uhhh...'consipratorial' for me... not sure I really want to waste my time there...

I didn't do the calcs for kinetic energy, so I'm happy to agree with yours. However, this is kinetic energy (which is directional), which is not explosive like TNT - I believe most of the crater was caused by the kinetic energy of the plane, not allegedy exploding jet fuel, the force of most of which would radiate around the path of least resistance, as mentioned in the paper. The fact that the grass inside the crater is not burnt would suggest the crater was caused by momentum, not explosion of jet fuel.

I'm certainly happy to agree that the impact (and resulting kinetic energy) would certainly create a crater, which would be at least as deep as you mention - there's no argument from me there. But, as physics shows, the ground at the point of impact is providing 'almost' the same resisting force to the plane. This is why, particularly with something hitting the ground at less than 45º, the resulting forces would act to 'rebound', as shown. So to assume that the plane kept travelling in the same direction to bury itself doesn't make sense. As the paper also showed, the more kinetic energy the plane has, the more resistance the ground provides. So, crater - absolutely. Buried plane - don't be silly.

Further, to claim that some pieces are buried 50' deep (as some people do), is nonsense, as far as I'm concered. I'll convert it to metric, because most humans gave up the imperial system when we came out of the trees .

50' is roughly 15 metres. One cubic metre of sand that is 15 metres deep not only has its own inertia, but the added weight of 14 cubic metres of sand on top of it. Using the figures in the paper, this equates to 20 tons pushing down on it. To displace this with shards of aluminium sheeting or seats is nonsense. Also, as that cubic metre of sand is surrounded by other cubic metres of sand with the same downward force on them, the ability for these small pieces to displace the sand laterally is nil.

I haven't been able to find any good photos of Flight 1771 - is there a link somewhere?

Rewey

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey,

Personal insult to Rewey is noted, Cameron. I should have warned Rewey that insults and name-calling would also be used against him in this thread.

Also to keep in mind, Flight 93 per the FDR that was found at the crash scene

Also keep in mind that the alleged FDR has never been proven to belong to the alleged Flight UA93. It's a matter of faith if you want to believe the data it allegedly contains.

One more thing. It appears to me that you are not familiar with the crash of flight 1771.

As predicted, on the first page of this thread, we've got another off-topic post about a different plane crash, trying to derail the thread.

That's two off-topic plane crashes from two different government story believers, trying to derail this thread.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Because you (and others) on this thread seem to think that Flight 93's crash site, should have conformed to your notions of what a crash site looks like.

I think I've worked out what bugs me about some of your posts Swampfox...

You keep saying, as above, that people are wrong for assuming that the alleged Flight 93 crash doesn't conform to their own mental image of what a plane crash looks like.

But people develop this 'mental image' based on seeing images of crashed planes everywhere throughout their life - on news, or internet pics, or movies. Therefore, the fact that no other plane in history has been almost entirely swallowed by 'loosely packed' sand is why it stands out as being fake. This website shows hundreds of photos of plane crashes, of all various sizes and types - and EVERY ONE shows huge amounts of wreckage scattered on the ground:

www.airdisaster.com...

But this is EXACTLY WHY it is bizarre that some official party hasn't created a computer animation of the crash, OR used the pieces to reconstruct the plane.

According to some (like Reheat) more than 80% of the plane's pieces have been found. In many events, particularly ones where they can't work out what happened, or need to provide concrete evidence, they rebuild the crashed pieces on scaffolding. Not only is this such a significant national event, but there is also significant difference in opinion as to what happened - even in the offical story side (did the cockpit bury itself, shatter, or break off and bounce down the road? I've read witnesses claiming all three...). Therefore it only makes sense that the powers that be rebuild the shattered pieces on scaffolding to help work out WHY a plane allegedly crashed into the ground and was mostly swallowed up by 'loosely packed' soil.

Given that so much of the plane was allegedly recovered, it makes no sense at all that this hasn't been done.

It also makes no sense at all that no computer animation has been made. I've seen countless recreations of the WTC and Pentagon crashes, showing exactly which columns were taken out by which part of the plane, and what happened to wings and tails and engines. So why has NOT ONE been created for the Shanksville crash. It would be easy - start with a scale 3D model of the alleged impact site, take a scale 3D model of the plane, and animate away. The only reason I can think of for not seeing ONE of these done in the EIGHT YEARS since the crash, is that it simply looks too ludicrous for the public to believe. They would take one look and say "What the!?! That just looks absurd... Why is the impact crater only half the width of the plane?...etc..."

Rewey



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Personal insult to Rewey is noted, Cameron. I should have warned Rewey that insults and name-calling would also be used against him in this thread.

It's called a typo. How old are you? The adults in here are trying to have a conversation. Why do you have to instigate?

Also keep in mind that the alleged FDR has never been proven to belong to the alleged Flight UA93. It's a matter of faith if you want to believe the data it allegedly contains.

Hmmm... well then I suggest you call Honeywell. They are the manufactures of the FDR and retrieved the data. Funny how it matched many witness statements.

As predicted, on the first page of this thread, we've got another off-topic post about a different plane crash, trying to derail the thread.

The OP presented a post saying that this was the first time a crash like this happened. Flight 1991 is relevant due to the similairiles. Sorry it hurts you.

That's two off-topic plane crashes from two different government story believers, trying to derail this thread.

I believe the thousands of people that were at the crash scene.
The first responders.
Wally Miller
The FDR
The CVR
The victims families.

You stick to your fantasy world.

In the document ''Flight 93, Soft Shanksville soil, and other such nonsense'' produced by Rewey, it posed 22 very good questions. Would anyone care to answer them ? It is probably better to read them in context in the document but I list them here :

Question 1: How can sand that contains large, hardened pockets of sand, an almost entire covering of wild grass, which leaves clean, sharp edges when dug, and in which feet and vehicles do not sink even slightly, be so ‘loosely packed’ that an entire plane can sink into it, and be so ‘loosely packed’ that it slips back over the plane once buried, leaving it neatly covered?

Question 2: How does a plane travel 34 metres into the sand largely unimpeded, onlyto have the tail fin and last 13 metres of the cabin ‘disintegrate’ solely from the impact of the tail fin with the ground, particularly given that the official story claims the ground was ‘soft and loose’ enough to swallow the entire plane, and the tail fin is apparently very light, and not structurally rigid?

Question 3: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion:
…which left pieces of debris such as these: …AND ‘disintegrated’ over 200 passenger chairs and internal fittings so that no traces remain, how did the last section of the plane remain intact to leave an imprint with the tail fin?

Question 4: If the plane was decelerating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the entire tail fin to ‘disintegrate’?

Question 5: How can it be argued that the ground was ‘soft and loose enough that it swallowed an entire plane’, but at the same time the ground was so hard that it ‘disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces’ (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes)?

Question 6: Is it realistic to expect that a tail fin impact on a bomb-resistant concrete building would result in much greater damage than a tail fin impact with ‘soft, loose sand’?

Question 7: Is it realistic to expect that exploding jet fuel as it impacts ‘soft, loose sand’ will react or explode differently to exploding jet fuel impacting with a bomb-resistant concrete building?

Question 8: If most of the blast impact at the Pentagon crash is dissipated throughout the mostly-empty office floors or outside of the building as shown, how did the blast manage to spread vertically through 5 steel-reinforced concrete floors, as shown below?

Question 9: If this damage is caused by the blast, and not the tail fin, why is it only vertical damage, all the way to the roof, and not in a radial fashion?

Question 10: If at least a part of the Pentagon damage shown was caused by the tail fin of the supposed plane, how did it behave so differently to the tail fin in the Shanksville crash (which apparently left only a minor impression on ‘soft, loose sand’), given both planes hit stationary objects and both planes experienced a jet fuel explosion?

Question 11: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion:
…which tore the plane apart, leaving thousands of pieces of debris such as these: …how did the plane bury itself entirely in sand, given that it was separated into much smaller individual pieces, each of which would not be carrying the same momentum as when traveling as one, connected mass (the plane)?

Question 12: If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story?

Question 13: If Val McClatchy took this photo, indicating a large explosion from the plane’s impact, which could only realistically be from the plane’s fuel load: …which left pieces of debris such as these: …AND given that the fuel of the plane is stored along the wings, how could grass and earth inside the supposed wing imprints be undisturbed and un-burnt? Surely, the point of impact for the wings (the ‘wing imprints’) is the point at which the fuel in the
wings would explode, as per Val McClatchy’s photo?

Question 14: If exploding jet fuel is supposed to look like this: …showing that a large area of the ground is covered, how can the result of a similar
explosion of jet fuel on the same day result in no burnt grass, right up to, and even inside the point of impact with the ground, such as below?

Question 15: If the burning jet fuel was sprayed or thrown approximately 60 metres towards the wooded area, why does Val McClatchy’s photo show a cloud of smoke which indicates both a singular point of explosion, and one initial explosion with virtually no residual burning, as shown below?

Question 16: How can one plane lose or shatter its cockpit when hitting sand so ‘loosely packed’ that it swallowed the rest of the plane, whilst another on the same day crashes through 6 external bomb-resistant walls?

Question 17: As discussed above in the section on inertia, how were these other parts able to crash through 6 external walls, given that the momentum and inertia they carried as individual, disconnected items is far less than when traveling as one connected, heavy mass?

Question 19: How can 406 tons, or 282m³, of sand be displaced almost instantly, yet show absolutely no evidence of disturbance in the ground immediately around the alleged crash site?


Question 20: What type of ‘loosely packed’ sand provides absolutely no resistance to a 90 ton Boeing traveling at great speed, yet is firm enough for people to walk on without sinking up to their ankles, or for vehicles to drive on without becoming
bogged?

Question 21: If a plane has lost its cockpit, and therefore its ‘wedge’ shaped profile, how did it bury itself in sand when there was a force acting to push the nose away from the ground at roughly 25º, which is magnified the faster the plane is traveling, and another force provided by gravity acting to twist the plane further onto its back?

Question 22: How, therefore, could this loose sand hold the nose of the plane firmly in the ground to prevent it tipping over, particularly given that the plane was only at 40º to the ground? Surely the nose would have just lifted through this incredibly ‘loosely packed’ sand?

reply to post by Rewey


The part about the mortar is found in the book I mentioned.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dewey...

Innocent typo... no blood, no foul.

Besides - even if it was an insult, I don't get it! And I've been called much worse!

Rewey

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by waypastvne
The sources I cite are from Jane's all the worlds aircraft. and Boeing's web site. There are other sources. Carbon fiber does shatter into very small peices on impact. The resin does burn away and leaves small peices of carbon cloth that can be carried aloft and drift with the wind. This information is easy to verify. Could you please amend your paper with these facts.

Just thinking about your comments here waypastvne...

Although I'm going to change the paper to note that the exterior tail fin skin was carbon fibre, there are still a couple of questions that still won't be answered:

1. If Val McClatchy took a photo of the result of the explosion, which apparently shattered the main cabin and fuselage, how did the tail make it all the way to the ground to be shattered on impact?

2. If the plane was decelrating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the tail fin, even a carbon fibre one, to 'disintegrate' on impact with soft or 'loosely packed' soil, soft enough to swallow almost the entire plane? The plane would have had to travel around 34 metres into the ground before the tail fin would impact with this soft, loose soil.

3. You mention that the resin does burn away. This raises another discrepancy between a jet fuel explosion from the wings (and therefore tanks) impacting the ground, but not burning or disrupting the grass growing there, yet still burning all the resin from the tail section of the plane...

Just things to think about...

Rewey



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Rewey]

reply to post by Rewey

But people develop this 'mental image' based on seeing images of crashed planes everywhere throughout their life - on news, or internet pics, or movies. Therefore, the fact that no other plane in history has been almost entirely swallowed by 'loosely packed' sand is why it stands out as being fake. This website shows hundreds of photos of plane crashes, of all various sizes and types - and EVERY ONE shows huge amounts of wreckage scattered on the ground

And which is why crash investigations are best left to the professionals.

Flight 93 wreckage
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
pittsburgh.about.com...
pittsburgh.about.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
farm4.static.flickr.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg

reply to post by Rewey

But people develop this 'mental image' based on seeing images of crashed planes everywhere throughout their life - on news, or internet pics, or movies. Therefore, the fact that no other plane in history has been almost entirely swallowed by 'loosely packed' sand is why it stands out as being fake. This website shows hundreds of photos of plane crashes, of all various sizes and types - and EVERY ONE shows huge amounts of wreckage scattered on the ground

And which is why crash investigations are best left to the professionals.

Flight 93 wreckage
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
pittsburgh.about.com...
pittsburgh.about.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
farm4.static.flickr.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg

There was plenty of wreckage around the crashsite.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]