Exactly. Reasoning with people whos IQ rivals that of a deformed marmoset is a waste of time tho.
-
Comment -
Kill myself?
Is the the best you can offer?
This is known as a deflection, you call out someone on a fact, prove them dead wrong, and they comeback at you with kill yourself.
Too funny, at least you are an idiot that amuses me.
So, why would you post there were no airphones on 93 when GTE says their air phones were on the plane, and operational and functional.Comment -
shutup moronComment -
cant make cell phone calls from that altitude and speed in 2001 you ate up little ape.Comment -
can someone tell me how building 7 collapsed but wasnt hit by a plane?Comment -
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11: The Mysterious Plane Crash Site Without a Plane
"This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no
bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal.
There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form,
look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset
barracks of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]
Comment -
Many people who witnessed the site where United Airlines Flight 93 is supposed to have gone down on September 11, 2001, have said how little it resembled what they expected the scene of a plane crash to look like.
According to official accounts, Flight 93, the fourth plane to be hijacked on September 11, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after its courageous passengers and crew members attempted to retake control of their plane. However, numerous individuals who spent time at the supposed crash site have described seeing almost nothing resembling wreckage from a plane there. Some witnesses have recalled seeing little or no human remains at the site. And although Flight 93 was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it crashed, investigators found no contamination from jet fuel in the soil and ground water around the site.
There is a lot of suspicious evidence relating to the crash of Flight 93, which casts serious doubt on the official account of what happened. This evidence suggests that what witnesses saw might actually have been the result of an attempt to fake the scene of a plane crash in an appalling act of deception, rather than the site of a genuine crash. The relatively small amount of debris that some witnesses noticed could have been planted. If this is what happened, it would mean the fate of Flight 93 is still unknown.
FLIGHT 93 ALLEGEDLY CRASHED AFTER ITS PASSENGERS REBELLED AGAINST THE HIJACKERS
The official story of Flight 93 is that the plane, a Boeing 757-200, took off from Newark International Airport, New Jersey, at 8:42 a.m. on September 11, bound for San Francisco, California. It had seven crew members and 37 passengers--including four hijackers--on board. The first 46 minutes of its journey proceeded routinely. But at 9:28 a.m., the hijackers seized control of the plane, with the intention of crashing it into either the White House or the Capitol building in Washington, DC.
However, crew members and passengers soon began making phone calls to friends, colleagues, and family members on the ground, to report what was happening, and in those calls learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Realizing that their plane's hijacking was part of a larger attack on America, they made the decision to fight back against the hijackers. They began their assault on the cockpit at 9:57 a.m. In response, the hijackers chose to crash the plane into the ground rather than risk the passengers and crew members retaking control of it.
Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania, near the tiny town of Shanksville, at 10:03 a.m., at a speed of around 580 miles per hour. In its final moments, the plane rolled over, and it crashed flying upside-down and at an angle of 40 degrees, with its right wing and nose hitting the ground first. All on board were killed. [4]
There are, however, serious problems with this account. Perhaps the most striking of these is the fact that, remarkably, a significant amount of evidence indicates that no plane crashed at the location where Flight 93 supposedly went down.
WITNESSES SAW 'NOTHING BUT TINY PIECES OF DEBRIS' AT THE CRASH SCENE
Flight 93 weighed 127 tons when it crashed, according to New York Timesreporter and author Jere Longman. [5] And yet numerous individuals, including some of the first people to arrive on the scene, have described the lack of anything resembling plane wreckage at the alleged crash site.
Assistant Fire Chief Rick King, who drove the first fire truck to reach the site, recalled thinking when he arrived: "Where is this plane? And where are the people?" King saw "thousands of tiny pieces scattered around--bits of metal, insulation, wiring--but no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater and charred earth." [6] He sent his men into the woods to search for the fuselage, but they kept coming back and telling him, "Rick, there's nothing." [7]
Homer Barron, who also arrived shortly after the crash, has recalled, "It didn't look like a plane crash, because there was nothing that looked like a plane." He added: "I [have] never seen anything like it. Just like a big pile of charcoal." [8]
Jon Meyer, the first reporter on the scene, said he was "able to get right up to the edge of the crater" where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground. However, he described: "All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. ... There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts." [9] Local coroner Wallace Miller, who was also one of the first people to arrive, said the crater looked "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped all this trash into it." [10]
Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police said the site looked "like a trash heap." There was "nothing but tiny pieces of debris," he said. "It's just littered with small pieces." [11] According to Monaco, "It didn't look like a plane crash." [12] Scott Spangler, one of the first photographers on the scene, said, "I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal." But, he recalled, "There was nothing, just this pit." "I didn't think I was in the right place," he commented. [13]
And FBI agent Wells Morrison, the crash site commander on September 11, said his first thought upon reaching the scene was, "Where is the plane?" He recalled, "Most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that." He added, "I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris." [14]
SCENE WAS UNLIKE A CRASH SITE
A number of witnesses stated specifically that they thought the scene appeared unlike the site of a plane crash. Lyle Szupinka, an area commander of the Pennsylvania State Police, said that when he arrived, "There was pieces of debris, small pieces of debris laying everywhere, and there were a lot of papers blowing around, and the ground was on fire." The debris, he said, was "very, very small." But, he added, "There was actually nothing to tell you that that was an aircraft." Szupinka commented, "Had you not known that that was an aircraft crash, you would've looked at that and you would've said something happened here, but I don't know what." [15]
Local resident John Maslak was one of the first people to arrive at the site, and saw the crater where Flight 93 supposedly went into the ground. A state trooper told him a plane had crashed there. But, Maslak has commented: "There was no way. The hole wasn't big enough and there was nothing there." [16]
Patrick Madigan, a commander with the Pennsylvania State Police, described: "When I looked at the pit, I didn't realize that was where the plane had crashed. I thought, at first, that it was a burn pit for the coal company." A fireman said this was where the plane went into the ground. "I was amazed," Madigan recalled, "because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash. I thought I would see recognizable plane parts. But at the pit, there was nothing that looked like a plane." [17] Craig Bowman, a colleague of Madigan's, recalled: "Until that point, I had never been to a large plane crash. I was thinking that I should be seeing parts of the plane, seats, etc." However, he said, "There was nothing that was recognizable to me as a plane." [18]
William Baker, of the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency, recalled: "When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, 'There is no way there is a 757 scattered here.'" Baker said, "The biggest piece of debris I saw would have probably fit in my pocket." [19] And Paul Bomboy, a paramedic who responded to the initial call for help, commented: "It was a very strange thing that there weren't normal things going on that you would have expected. When a plane crashes, there is a plane and there are patients." [20]
Michael Soohy, a veteran FBI agent, had been to the sites of plane crashes before and expected to see "chaos, bodies, [and] a hulking wreck of a jet." But, he commented, "I don't think anyone expected to see what they didn't see." [21]
FLIGHT 93 WAS APPARENTLY 'SWALLOWED' INTO THE GROUND
Some witnesses have said it appeared as if Flight 93 had been "swallowed" into the ground. Bob Weaver, the ranking Pennsylvania state trooper at the alleged crash site, recalled: "I was totally amazed that this big plane was just swallowed up in the ground. ... It took a while for it to sink in that there was an airplane in there." [22] Michael Soohy suggested that the moment the plane hit the ground must have been "almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. ... The plane went in and the stuff back-filled right over it." [23] And Fire Chief Terry Shaffer said he thought that "the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft, and closed up." [24]
Bob Craig, the head of the Pittsburgh FBI's evidence response team, later described what supposedly happened, saying, "Turn the picture of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on its side and, for all intents and purposes, the face of the building is the strip mine in Shanksville." [25]
It has been suggested that the softness of the soil into which Flight 93 supposedly crashed was a factor. The site where the plane allegedly went down was a reclaimed coal strip mine. This means that a few years earlier, the ground had been excavated down to a coal vein, the coal had been removed, and then the earth had been replaced. The ground was therefore relatively soft and consequently, as firefighters involved in the recovery effort described, "the Boeing 757 tunneled right in." [26]
But even though Flight 93 supposedly disappeared into the earth, the crater allegedly made when it hit the ground seems to have been too small for this to have been the case. Frank Monaco told reporters that the "V-shaped gouge" created by the plane was "eight to 10 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet long." [27] Roger Bailey, of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, recalled that the crater "wasn't deep. Ten to 12 feet deep." Bailey said he "thought it was a hole that they had dug to burn garbage." [28]
John Maslak estimated that the crater was "maybe 25 feet wide and 40 feet long," and "ten to 15 feet deep." [29] After the ground had been excavated in order to recover the wreckage of the plane, the crater was still only 35 feet deep, according to the FBI. [30]
Flight 93 had a wingspan of 125 feet, a tail height of 44 feet, and was 155 feet long. [31] Is it really possible that such a large plane, when it hit the ground, would make a crater only about 40 feet across and 25 feet wide, and disappear entirely into soil just 35 feet deep? As reporter Jon Meyer commented, "You just can't believe a whole plane went into this crater." [32]
How then can we explain the almost complete absence of anything resembling a plane at the alleged crash site? Surely, witnesses would have seen a lot more wreckage if a Boeing 757 did indeed go down there. A possibility that needs to be considered, therefore, is that Flight 93 did not crash in this field near Shanksville. The relatively small amount of wreckage that was seen there could have been planted as part of a sophisticated attempt at faking the scene of a plane crash. The intention of the perpetrators was to deceive the public into believing that Flight 93 did indeed crash at this site.
INVESTIGATORS FOUND NO JET FUEL IN THE GROUND
There is a lot more evidence supporting this possibility. For example, reports indicate that, incredibly, no jet fuel was found in the soil and ground water around where Flight 93 supposedly crashed.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began taking samples of soil and well water from around the site about a week after 9/11, to see if they had been contaminated by Flight 93's fuel or other toxic materials. [33] Flight 93 was estimated to have been carrying about 7,000 gallons of fuel, weighing about 37,500 pounds, when it crashed. [34] But David Bomba, a DEP hydrogeologist, told local residents that the first samples of soil and water to be tested had been found to be clean. [35] And a couple of weeks later, at the beginning of October 2001, the DEP reported that "no contamination" had been discovered. [36] DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated, much of [the plane's fuel] seems to have dissipated." [37]
United Airlines contracted a company, Environmental Resources Management, Inc., to document soil and water quality at the alleged crash site. That company issued a final report in September 2002, which described the results of environmental sampling. The report concluded that "surface soils, subsurface soils, and ground water beneath the site did not exceed any state health standards and did not require any remediation." Furthermore, according to the report, "None of the surface water results indicated any contamination that could be attributed to the Flight 93 crash." [38]
Curiously, despite the absence of jet fuel in the soil, "hot spots" sometimes erupted in the crater where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. Investigators reported that these flared up as early as the morning of September 12. [39] An excavator was subsequently used to remove soil from the crater, to help investigators recover wreckage and body fragments that were buried there. [40] According to volunteer firefighter Barry Kister, "The Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department was called in occasionally, because somebody would dig into a hot spot and that would cause a little fire." [41] Whether any attempt was made to determine the cause of these "hot spots" is unclear.
WITNESSES SAW 'NO HUMAN REMAINS' AT THE CRASH SITE
An important feature of the alleged crash site, which casts further doubt on the claim that Flight 93 went down there, is that, as well as the absence of plane wreckage, witnesses noticed a lack of human remains there.
There were 44 people on Flight 93 on September 11, who were calculated to have weighed about 7,000 pounds in total. [42] And yet Jeff Phillips, one of the first people to arrive at the supposed crash site, recalled, "The only thing we saw that was even remotely human was half a shoe that was probably 10 feet from the impact area." [43] Dave Fox, a former firefighter, also arrived shortly after the crash. All he saw that resembled human remains were three chunks of torn human tissue. "You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them," Fox has commented. [44] Kelly Leverknight, a local resident who drove to the crash scene with a neighbor, recalled, "We didn't think there were people on the plane because we didn't see anybody." [45]
Lyle Szupinka, of the Pennsylvania State Police, told an interviewer, "If you've ever been to a bad airplane crash, they're nasty with the human remains and what have you." Therefore, he said: "When I was going to that site, I was preparing myself that basically this wasn't going to be a pretty scene. This was going to [be] nasty." But, Szupinka recalled: "When I got there, I was surprised to find that I saw no human remains. None whatsoever." [46]
Wallace Miller, the Somerset County coroner, was reportedly "familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death." "I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation," he said. But after walking around the site for an hour, the only recognizable body part he had seen was a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. [47] "It appeared as though there were no passengers or crew on this plane," Miller has commented. [48] A year after 9/11, he said: "This is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop." [49]
LARGE AMOUNT OF PAPER DEBRIS SURVIVED THE CRASH
However, although witnesses noticed a surprising lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the supposed crash site, large quantities of paper debris were seen and recovered from there.
Kelly Leverknight recalled seeing "a bunch of paper." [50] Faye Hahn, an emergency medical technician, said she saw "papers everywhere." Upon inspection, she found these were "pieces of mail." [51] Roger Bailey recalled that "mail was scattered everywhere." And Rick King similarly recalled, "There was mail scattered everywhere." [52]
Lee Purbaugh, one of the first people to arrive on the scene, initially thought the aircraft that crashed "was just a cargo plane carrying some mail, because when he ran up to the actual scene, he didn't notice any carnage, just some mail around," according to the Daily American. [53] According to Jere Longman, the items Purbaugh saw included "envelopes with California addresses, magazines, [and] paper on the ground and in the trees." Some of the envelopes were burned but others were undamaged. [54]
The Independent reported that Flight 93 was carrying "7,500 pounds of mail to California" when it crashed. [55] According to Roger Bailey, in the days after September 11, pieces of mail found at the crash scene would be gathered into a recycling bin and, periodically, the post office would send a mail truck to take away a load. [56]
But if the official account of what happened to Flight 93 was correct, surely fragile and flammable paper items would have been far more likely to be destroyed in the crash than human remains and metal plane wreckage. And yet paper seems to have been the material most able to survive intact. Could this have been because the paper debris was--like the debris resembling plane wreckage--somehow planted at the scene, as part of the attempt at creating the appearance of a plane having crashed there?
PAPER DEBRIS INCLUDED ITEMS BELONGING TO THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS
Some paper items discovered at the crash scene played a role in supporting the official account of the 9/11 attacks and who was responsible for them. For example, according to FBI agents who were involved in the recovery effort, items made of paper and other fragile materials that belonged to the alleged hijackers were found. These included driver's licenses, identification cards, passports, a credit card, receipts, tickets, a red bandana, pages from the Koran, and "a checklist reminding the terrorists to blend in when boarding planes and instructing them to 'shave their beards.'" Referring to items found at the supposed crash site of Flight 93, FBI agent A. Todd McCall said the hijackers "thought their identification would be destroyed during the attacks," but, he added, "They were wrong." [57]
But if the real perpetrators of the attacks included people who worked for the U.S. military and other government agencies, planting such items as these would have had obvious benefits. The presence of these items at the crash scene would have diverted suspicion away from the actual perpetrators and focused it instead onto Muslim terrorists.
Other paper items that remarkably survived intact included a couple of Bibles. Several witnesses noticed one of these at the crash scene. [58] Terry Shaffer and Sam Wills recalled seeing "very little debris ... scattered around the smoldering impact crater left by the plane." However, they said that "about 15 yards from the pit ... lay an obviously well-used Bible that, oddly, was unscorched." [59] Wallace Miller saw the other Bible that was found at the crash scene in a warehouse where victims' belongings were kept. [60]
Might these Bibles have been planted as propaganda for the "war on terror" that the 9/11 attacks would initiate? Perhaps they were meant to symbolize the "good" Christian passengers and crew members on Flight 93 who had courageously and selflessly taken on "evil" Muslim terrorists.
FLIGHT 93'S BLACK BOXES WERE FOUND AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE GROUND
Another detail that suggests debris was planted at the alleged crash site is the locations where Flight 93's "black boxes" were found. The two black boxes on a plane are the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. All commercial aircraft carry these devices, which record a plane's condition and performance while it is in flight. They are mounted in the tail of an aircraft. [61]
Flight 93's black boxes were found in the crater at the alleged crash site. The flight data recorder was recovered late in the afternoon of September 13 and the cockpit voice recorder was recovered during the evening of September 14. [62] Significantly, although the black boxes are located next to each other on a plane, those from Flight 93 were found at different depths in the ground. The flight data recorder was found 15 feet into the crater and the cockpit voice recorder 25 feet into it. [63]
FBI agent Wells Morrison commented: "It was strange. The black boxes are right next to each other on the aircraft, but one was found 13 feet deeper into the crater than the other." In other words, had Flight 93 really crashed at this location, the black boxes should have been found in the same place. The fact that they weren't suggests they were planted at the site, but had carelessly been placed at different depths in the soil. Morrison also commented that FBI agents had been "surprised, quite honestly, that we didn't find [the black boxes] sooner." [64]
DEBRIS WAS FOUND MILES AWAY FROM THE ALLEGED CRASH SITE
Another problem with the official account of what happened to Flight 93 is the fact that debris, apparently from the crash, was found far away from the site where the plane is supposed to have gone down.
Part of a plane's engine, weighing about 1,000 pounds, was recovered "a considerable distance" from the alleged crash site, according to Lyle Szupinka. [65] John Marshall, a state police fire marshal and criminal investigator who found this piece of wreckage, said it was "600 yards from the crash site." [66]
Other wreckage was found near a pond by firefighter Mike Sube and a couple of his colleagues. This included "a portion of the landing gear and the fuselage," according to Sube. Sube said that "one of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there." [67]
Some debris was found around Indian Lake, about three miles from the main crash scene. [68] Carol Delasko, who worked at Indian Lake Marina, said that moments after the crash apparently occurred, she saw a cloud of debris, several hundred feet across, above the lake. [69] "It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake," she described. [70]
Tom Spinelli, who also worked at the marina, said the debris was "mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine, and scraps of seat cloth." [71] Brad Boyer, who was fishing on the lake on the morning of September 11, recalled that he heard "a huge bang" and then the sky "rained garbage." The debris he saw included "paper" and "tinfoil--little pieces of it." [72] Some of the debris landed on Terry Lowery's nearby farm. Lowery said it comprised "paper, insulation, and mail." [73]
On the morning of September 12, debris began washing up on the shore of the lake. This included "something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic, and checks," according to marina employee John Fleegle. [74]
Furthermore, some lightweight debris was found in the borough of New Baltimore, about eight miles from the supposed crash site and separated from it by a mountain ridge. [75] One New Baltimore resident, Melanie Hankinson, had been told by a neighbor, "There was a loud bang and smoke, and then these papers started blowing through your yard." [76] Hankinson subsequently found "several financial documents, an airline magazine, a pilot handbook, and other small pieces of debris." [77] She recalled, "There was some black webbing"--apparently from insulation that had lined the belly of the plane. "A lot of people found that," she added. [78]
DEBRIS WAS RISING INTO THE AIR
The existence of these debris fields away from the main crash scene has led some people to suggest that Flight 93 either came down after a bomb on board exploded, or was shot down by a U.S. military fighter jet. [79] However, the amount of material discovered at these sites seems to have been fairly small, presumably a lot less than would have been found had an airliner weighing over 100 tons started breaking up in mid-air. For example, FBI agents eventually only carted away "a large garbage bag full of debris" that they recovered from Indian Lake, according to John Fleegle. [80] And the debris found in New Baltimore seems to have been a fairly small amount of paper and other lightweight material.
What is more, Carol Delasko said the cloud of confetti-like debris she saw over Indian Lake had been "rising about 200 feet into the air" around the time the crash apparently occurred. [81] Had this debris come from an aircraft breaking up in mid-air, it surely would not have been "rising." And Brad Boyer said the material he saw coming down onto the lake included "leaves. A lot of leaves." [82] Surely leaves would not have fallen out of an aircraft disintegrating in the sky.
As well as being inconsistent with the official account of what happened to Flight 93, therefore, the evidence relating to the additional debris fields appears inconsistent with the alternative theories that the plane was brought down by a bomb or by a missile fired from a fighter jet. Might the debris at these locations instead have been planted somehow, like the debris at the main crash scene, to add to the impression that Flight 93 went down in this part of rural Pennsylvania?
COTTAGE IN THE WOODS WAS TURNED INTO 'A TOTAL RUIN'
Another notable piece of evidence is the damage that was suffered by a cottage near the alleged crash site. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that "every window and door" of the cottage "had been blown off and obliterated, [the cottage's] ceilings and floor tiles had been blasted loose, and much of the interior was wrecked." [83] Furniture had been tossed around, the refrigerator was twisted backwards and shoved away from the wall, and items had been thrown from the cupboards onto the floor. [84]
Barry Hoover, the man who lived in the cottage, found a large amount of debris, apparently from Flight 93, surrounding his home, including "papers strewn everywhere ... small pieces of wire all over ... just a lot of small bits of fragmented debris." [85] Now & Then magazine reported that the impact of debris from the plane made the cottage "structurally unsound, shifting it an inch and a half off the foundation." [86]
The garage next to the cottage was also badly damaged, with its door turned "inside out and upside down." Local solicitor Daniel Rullo recalled, "The way it was described to me was that [the garage door] must have been blown up, the springs snapped, and it came back upside down." [87]
COTTAGE WAS SUPPOSEDLY DAMAGED BY THE 'SHOCK WAVE' FROM THE CRASH
The damage to Barry Hoover's cottage was reportedly caused by "the shock waves set off" when Flight 93 hit the ground. [88] The Washington Postdescribed, "The shock wave from Flight 93 ... spewed debris through the woods with such force that it blew out all the windows and doors, and shook the foundation on Barry's place." [89]
And yet it seems odd that this cottage suffered such significant damage, especially considering that there was so little damage at the site where Flight 93 supposedly went down. For example, Patrick Madigan recalled that at the alleged crash site, "All there was was a hole in the ground and a smoking debris pile." [90] William Baker commented that the crash scene "really didn't look like anything major." [91] Barry Hoover said that his cottage, meanwhile, "looked like what you see after a tornado or hurricane goes through--a total ruin." [92]
Hoover's cottage was reportedly located "a few hundred yards away" from where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. [93] It was also "nestled in a thick stand of trees." [94] Why then was it so badly damaged? Might the damage have been created by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, as part of their attempt at fabricating evidence to support the official account of what happened to Flight 93?
LARGE QUANTITIES OF PLANE WRECKAGE AND HUMAN REMAINS WERE LATER FOUND
Even though numerous witnesses have said they saw little or no plane wreckage at the alleged crash site of Flight 93, after searching the area for just 12 days, the FBI announced that it had completed its work at the site and claimed it had recovered 95 percent of the plane from there. [95] And despite the lack of human remains that witnesses noticed, searchers were subsequently able to find about 1,500 pieces of human tissue around the site, according to the Washington Post, which together weighed about 600 pounds. [96] Although this was only around eight percent of the total weight of those on the plane, it was still a considerable amount in light of the accounts of witnesses who made comments such as, "I was surprised to find that I saw no human remains."
A possibility that should be investigated, considering this discrepancy between the accounts of witnesses and the claims that significant amounts of plane wreckage and human remains were found, is that debris was planted at the alleged crash site in the days after 9/11, during the recovery effort.
It appears there may have been a period when work at the site stopped, during which this could have happened. On Monday, September 17, relatives of the passengers and crew members on Flight 93 visited the crash scene. [97] Tom Bender, a therapist who helped support those involved with the recovery effort, recalled that "machines"--presumably digging equipment--that were being used at the site had to be stopped that day. Some workers later complained: "Why did they make us stop when all the families came? I would have wanted to see people digging and working, trying to find my uncle's body."
When the recovery effort resumed, workers had much more success in finding wreckage, including evidence connecting the alleged terrorists to what happened on Flight 93. Bender recalled that following the victims' relatives' visit to the site, he "started hearing reports that [recovery workers] were finding a lot more evidence than they ever expected. 'Bad guy stuff' was the terminology that I heard used." Bender added, "This apparently was a rich place for evidence." [98] Could this have been because debris was planted around the time work stopped for the relatives' visit?
Two days after the relatives' visit, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, "As investigators have delved deeper below the impact point, the material unearthed has become increasingly larger and more recognizable than the extremely fragmented debris found nearer the surface." FBI spokesman William Crowley stated, "As they go deeper, they're finding material that's more significant; I'll leave it at that." [99] Much of the plane wreckage was reportedly found "buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater." [100]
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRASH SITE
Evidence relating to the crash of Flight 93 is filled with contradictions, like the claim that much of the aircraft was recovered from the crash scene, even though witnesses had seen almost nothing resembling plane wreckage there. Rick King even noted contradictions between separate pieces of evidence he observed himself. King, who lived in Shanksville, had been standing on his front porch when the crash apparently took place. He later recalled hearing "like a whining, screaming noise of the engines," and then seconds later, he said, "the ground shook underneath my feet. I mean my porch, the house, everything just rumbled." [101]
When he arrived at the crash scene, however, he could see "nothing really identifiable as far as a plane." [102] Seeing, instead, pieces of mail "scattered everywhere," King began thinking that "maybe this wasn't a commercial airliner" that had crashed. "Maybe it was a mail plane or a Learjet or a commuter plane." But, he commented: "I couldn't put that together with the explosion I had heard and felt. It had to be something with a lot of fuel to make that sound and that rumble two miles away in town." [103]
Surely if the official story of Flight 93 was true, there would be more consistency between different pieces of evidence of the crash, since they all would have originated from the same event. The contradictions between separate pieces of evidence are therefore another indication that, rather than Flight 93 having crashed in the field near Shanksville, evidence was created and debris was planted to deceive people into thinking that was what happened.
The fact that there was so much suspicious and contradictory evidence, and that the many anomalies regarding the crash have never been adequately explained, means that the fate of Flight 93 is still unknown. There are a lot of questions that urgently need to be addressed.
For example, if debris that was intended to appear as if it came from a plane crash was planted at the alleged crash site, when and how was it put there? Who planted it? Importantly, if Flight 93 did not crash in this field in Pennsylvania, what happened to it? What was the fate of its unfortunate passengers and crew? And who was behind this outrageous act?
These questions need to be examined as part of a rigorous new investigation of the 9/11 attacks, in which investigators diligently follow the evidence wherever it leads. Until that happens, the fate of Flight 93 should be regarded as an unsolved crime.Comment -
-
This is an actual plane crash with debri looks like in a field...
In the pentagon picture I posted alot of the debris look the same.. End of story..
There is also a big ass hole in the front of the Pentagon easily big enough to be a plane hitting it.. This solid brick..
This sure looks like a huge plane explosion in front of the Pentagon to me and jet fuel causing a huge wall of blackish fire slow burn after.. Bombs don't do this.. End of story...
Last edited by JIBBBY; 12-24-15, 07:26 PM.Comment -
These people are also lying and crazy. But you arent. Because thats what CNN said.
"This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no
bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal.
There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form,
look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset
barracks of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]Comment -
The firefighters also are liars, as is anyone who said they heard bombs and explosions.
But you are correct.Comment -
Are you surprised?
The people blurt out a bunch of BS "facts" that "cant' be disproven" because they read them on the internet and then when we disprove them, they get mad, call people names, and start copying and pasting a bunch of garbage that is on the internet.
Phones could be used at that altitude
It's really not even that hard to look this up yourself. Using the theory phones couldn't be used is just laziness.
There was wreckage found
Wreckage was found at the the pentagon. There are fvcking pictures of it and witness statements. So what's better evidence, pictures and items recovered or hearsay bs on the internet?
Planes did hit the towers.
I can't even tell what the consensus is among the "truthers" now. It was cartoon, missile, didn't happen, did happen...I don't know. One of my friends lived there and still lives there and said he saw the second plane hit. Is he being paid off by the US government too? I guess the live footage I watched on TV that day didn't happen.....
LOL. Some people are really out there with this stuff....Comment -
As in all major stories of controversial nature, FOLLOW THE $$$.Comment -
Someone explain to me how building 7 collapsed at free fall speed without getting hit by anything.
Im still waiting.Comment -
Who had something to gain from this? Who did gain from it?
Its all so simple
You people just have a psychological block that says "It cant be possible for the government to do this to their own citizens".
Wrong. I assure you its very possible and it happened.Comment -
Ebe
Instead of cut and pasting a bunch of internet slop full of innuendos and half truths, try using original thought to make you case.
Or are you not capable?Comment -
I do
But I get tired of typing
Im trying to present as much evidence as possible
Cant think of a better wayComment -
Comment -
Theres too much to say on this matter. Especially when you are trying to reason with absolute morons like you Nash.Comment -
The problem I have with people like EBE is that they have nothing concrete to offer, or to back their assertions. Look at this thread, he has done two things, copied and pasted a bunch of shit that has been debunked a decade ago, and then he asks questions like "how can a building just fall?" In science, we would say he is working the scientific method backwards, he starts with what he believes and then plugs in facts that support his belief and he disregards anything else.
That's why I keep saying he has nothing, because he literally has nothing to add to this discussion. He told Donk early on that he was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it was an inside job, yet he cannot prove that, not even in the slightest. So he posts some circumstantial BS, fills the gaps with theories and then voila, he's a conspiracy theory nutjob.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that EBE is a schmo, not for believing something different than me, but because he believes something with absolute certainty yet he cannot prove even one bit of it. To me, that is the definition of a schmoComment -
Sounds like you need to go back and read again
Ive said plentyComment -
If you dont want to believe me fine, go ask a physicist how those buildings collapsed at free fall speeds
Or an engineer
Anyone truly qualified to answer
Or instead of shaking your head like a buffalo without inspecting anything how about doing some researchComment -
You guys are fuckin dumb and dirt and thats the truth
Bottom line
Have fun moronsComment -
Good thread
Comment -
I've already read everything you've copied and pasted. I read it years ago when I did my own research. A lot of it isn't true or factual.
You can't take what read in the Internet as gossiple.
A lot of those "facts" you reference have been disproven.
911 truthers can't even come up with a consistent narrative. Was it a bird, was it a plane, was is a cartoon, or was it a missile?Comment -
you lieComment -
Ebe just trolling now
Comment -
Why was there molten metal found in the rubble you deranged donkeys.Comment
