| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Flight 93 Never Crashed Near Shanksville; Just One Of Many Loyal Bushie Lies | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 2 2008, 10:23 AM (2,226 Views) | |
| Terral | Feb 2 2008, 10:23 AM Post #1 |
|
911Truther
|
Greetings to All: Flight 93 never crashed in the empty field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11 or any other day. You are bearing witness to one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated on the masses in United States history. Try to find just one picture of Flight 93 crashed anywhere to realize NONE even exist. We begin by putting "Flight 93" into your http://www.altavista.com search engine to find this at Wikipedia.org: Wikipedia.org Website:  Everyone here can look up all the “Flight 93” pictures you want and find many pictures of the empty hole in the ground. Even the tiny little 20-foot diameter hole shows grass growing on all the slopes.  Take a good long hard look into the empty hole and tell me if you see a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. There is not even any Jetliner debris in the area and no place for any 100-Ton Jetliner to be hiding. This site is excellent for finding ‘the truth’ on this Flight 93 HOAX: LetsRoll911.org Website:
There you can see the grass growing down into the little hole in this video where someone has dumped a load of garbage to set a small fire. Below that movie you see this picture with my notes:  The photographer appears to be crouching down in the hole, but our eye level is still on the same plane as the hood on that fire truck. Some people actually believe this little hole is 35 feet deep :0), when you can see the hole cannot possibly be more than just four feet deep. Any engines or black boxes the government claims were have found here would be planted 'after' this grass was later removed. This link and Fox News Report tell the story. What Really Happened:
Go to the What Really Happened Website and verify all the evidence for yourself against the documented pictures here to realize MANY people have been DUPED by Senor Bushie from the very beginning.   What we need is some hard evidence for WHY some Americans continue to believe Flight 93 crashed into this empty field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, besides “Because Senor Bushie told me so . . .”. GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 2 2008, 10:30 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 2 2008, 06:49 PM Post #2 |
|
100% wrong again, Terrel. 95% of United Flight 93 was recovered in Shanksville. The reason it didn't remain in one or even a handful of pieces is obvious. Flight 93 impacted the ground at a near-verticle angle at 850 feet per second, which is faster than the speed of a .45 bullet and nearing the speed of sound. No other plane in history has ever, ever crashed at these conditions. The Boeing 757 is 78% aluminum. This can't possibly stay intact when impacting the ground faster than the speed of a bullet. This isn't being a neo-con apologist (I hate neo-cons), this is the laws of physics. In fact, the pieces of the plane made of more solid titanium (namely the engines) were both found more or less intact. Maybe you should search for pictures of these. But, again, 95 percent of the plane was recovered. As far as the "tiny" 20-foot hole... have you bothered to research the diameter of the body of a 757? I'll save you the trouble: 12 feet, 4 inches wide. Frank Monoco measured the hole at about 20 feet wide. So a 12-foot wide object left a hole 20 feet wide... how big should the hole have been? And no, no grass is pictured growing on the slopes. It's black as rock. Even the overhanging trees were burned to a crisp. The fuel tanks in the wings for a 757 extend only about 2/3rds of the way down the wing. In the first picture you include in your post, you can see that only the last few feet of the wing imprint to the right of the picture (actually the left wing) has unscorched grass (if the grass were burnt, you'd probably be asking what could have burnt it, since that's beyond the fuel tank). Likewise, your third picture is misleading and shows the tip of the wing. In the picture itself, you can see the black scorchmarks were jet fuel did erupt. No one I'm aware of has ever claimed the hole is 35 feet deep. Straw-man claim. The FBI and NTSB recovered one of the engines 35 feet down, along with some other debris, but this was burried underground. Sorry, but you didn't get a single claim right. Conspiracy theorists have never presented evidence that something happened to Flight 93 other than it crashing in Shanksville (despite the burden of proof being squarely on them), and there is overwhelming evidence of what really happened to Flight 93. 95% of the plane was recovered. Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the plane crash in Shanksville. Val McClatchey took a photo of a mushroom plume of black smoke rising to the sky just moments after hearing the plane crash. Flight 93 was tracked on radar until it crashed. 37 phone calls were placed from the aircraft, indicated that it had been hijacked that that the passengers were planning to storm the cockpit and try to take over the plane. (Only 2 of these were from cell phones and yes, the answer to the question of cell phones working on planes in 2001 is a resounding 'yes'.) The struggle for the cockpit and the hijackers' decision to ground the plane was recorded on the cockpit voice recorder. The DNA of all passengers and hijackers were recovered in Shanksville. You haven't a single shred of evidence supporting your claim. |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 2 2008, 07:07 PM Post #3 |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
by the military, I'd like to add. |
|
|
| NK-44 | Feb 2 2008, 07:47 PM Post #4 |
|
At least Mark Roberts did:
 |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 2 2008, 07:58 PM Post #5 |
|
Ah, no. The FAA is not "the military". You also had other pilots in the air tracking the plane visually for air traffic controllers (one of the pilots was nearly hit by Flight 93 - but I guess he's lying or delusional, right?). |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 2 2008, 08:00 PM Post #6 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Funny, I don't remember mentioning the FAA. |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 2 2008, 08:19 PM Post #7 |
|
I was trying to cut you some slack and assume you were talking about the FAA. The military was never tracking Flight 93. Cleveland Center (the FAA) didn't notify NEADS that United 93 was hijacked and headed for Washington until 4 minutes after it had crashed. NEADS was notified that it had crashed at 10:15. I know you're going to bring up Norman Mineta's testimony about the "young man" being aware that Flight 93 was "50 miles out", "30 miles out", and "10 miles out", but all of this took place between 10:07 and sometime after NEADS notified the White House bunker (10:15 at the earliest). Between that time they logically assumed the plane was still heading for Washington, even though they were receiving their info from the FAA. So the military was only tracking Flight 93 in the sense that they were getting their information through the FAA, and all of this was after the plane had crashed. But I know what comes next. Since this doesn't fit with you pre-existing belief system, the FAA and NEADS are lying, right? Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 2 2008, 08:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 2 2008, 08:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
No, actually, I was going to let you listen to the commander of NEADS himself describe his 9/11, and other key officials in charge that day Edited by Gideon524, Feb 2 2008, 08:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Terral | Feb 3 2008, 09:38 AM Post #9 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi RKOwnens: If you really want to see defending arguments from me, then start by supporting your statements using some kind of EVIDENCE. Post #2 is RK’s ‘talk, talk, talk’ without one third-party reference and without a single picture of Flight 93 crashed anywhere. This is yet another picture of the empty hole of the empty field outside Shanksville where ‘you’ seem to be saying a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. :0) All I can do is LAUGH, because God knows I cannot begin looking through your evidence supporting your claims.
Really? And from this empty hole? :0) I heard they also recovered Santa’s sled, but Rudolph escaped with only minor injuries . . .
You mean like this? Maybe you are unaware of the fact that this 100-Ton Jetliner has a wingspan of 125 cotton picking feet, but this hole is reported to be a maximum of only 20 feet wide by news reporters on the scene on 9/11 in this video. :0) We can see no 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here by the pictures taken on the scene the very same day (go through all of them).
Give me a break, RK. Please try again when you have more that just ‘talk, talk, talk,’ and can show us a picture of Flight 93 crashed anywhere. This picture shows the dimensions of a real 100-Ton Jetliner standing over the itsy bitsy little impact hole, so please stop being ridiculous . . . GL, Terral |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 3 2008, 10:27 PM Post #10 |
|
Once again, Terral, you can pretend I haven't presented evidence, you can even present evidence attempting to disprove mine. But repeatedly pretending that no counter-evidence has been presented to your claim is just silly. Name a single issue where I've "talk, talk, talked" about without giving evidence, and I'll show you a number to a reply in this thread smaller than #15 where I've done just that. So what's the issue where I've only talk, talk, talked? This should be interesting. Just to go over your claim again concerning why the hole was empty... forget it, I've shown you already what material the plane was made of and how fast it was travelling. No need repeating that (just see above), so I'd like for you to tell me, honestly, why you believe United 93 should have been found intact in the hole. Do you sincerely believe that a plane impacting the ground faster than a speeding bullet, and then EXPLODING, should be found nicely in one hole? Feel free to answer yes or no. I'll remind you that the following picture is YOUR picture.  The measurements of the hole being 20 feet wide refer to THE HOLE, not the wing and tail indentations.  Your form of evidence that the hole is too small for a 757 is showing a picture of a 757 resting HORIZONTALLY across the hole. LOL. Was this a serious attempt at debate or were you just trying to be silly? Be honest, are you currently under the impression that Flight 93 fell from the sky at a zero degree angle? That's very cute. "show us a picture of Flight 93 crashed anywhere." How about several?   No debris was found in the crater and the walls weren't scorched?   No human remains were recovered?   Once again, 95% of the plane was recovered. I'm honestly interested in whether you truly believe that Flight 93 should have been found together in the hole itself, so please answer that. I'm also interested in what building demolition you supervised in which thermite was used, despite thermite never before in history being used in a controlled demolition, so please stop conveniently avoiding that question and let us know what the name of the building was. Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 3 2008, 10:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Terral | Feb 4 2008, 08:04 AM Post #11 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi RK:
RK is rambling aimlessly about ‘holes,’ because he has no case for Flight 93 crashing anywhere. RK’s use of these pictures proves beyond all doubt that he is here to push the Official Cover Story ‘and’ deceive these readers with his nonsense. This picture and this picture (like this video) show the grass growing all the way down to the bottom of the hole, because this depression was part of the topography ‘before’ anyone ever intimated that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here. Take a big fat Debunker’s (heh) guess at what this picture represents ‘and’ when this overhead shot view was taken? :0) This is a picture of 'your wing impressions' (heh) taken on April 20, 1994 showing CLEARLY that this depression was part of the topography of this field LONG before 9/11. RK is out here pointing at HOLES, because he does not have one picture of Flight 93 crashed ANYWHERE. The really sad part is that he intends on filling this Flight 93 Forum with NONSENSE no matter how many times we prove that all of his ‘talk, talk, talk’ amounts to nothing at all. GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 4 2008, 08:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 4 2008, 10:57 AM Post #12 |
|
what I love about the official story of 93 is that they expect us to believe that the plane was both swallowed by the ground, AND happened to bounce into the trees to catch them on fire. you can't have it both ways, was the ground more absorbant than water, or was it elastic like rubber? Also, I find it interesting that debunkers keep claiming that the plane fell at "near vertical" when the flight path says it was 40 degrees. well the interesting thing here is that they deny the official story when it serves to keep from debunking it. talk about quote mining... |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 4 2008, 11:02 AM Post #13 |
|
NK, no disrespect, but the 1994 photo has been dismissed as a different scar on the landscape. It doesn't even line up with the Sept, 11th crater. Nevertheless, it is certain that the newer scar was present at least a short time before 9/11, due to grass growing etc... My biggest argument has been that if the FDR is correct, and the flight impacted at 40 degrees, you'd see a huge "splash" of dirt travelling in the direction of the flight, but we see very little displacement of dirt. |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 4 2008, 11:31 AM Post #14 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
RKOwens4, Since you and I are having a seperate discussion on my video, I moved our conversation to where I originally posted my video, just to keep comments on it in the same thread. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/75249/ We'll continue discussion on the video there. thanks Edited by Gideon524, Feb 4 2008, 11:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 4 2008, 04:45 PM Post #15 |
|
Oh, Terral. You're very entertaining. In my first post, I presented facts, figures, and evidence. You considered this not facts but "talk, talk, talk", so I asked you to name a single issue which I've only "talk, talk, talked" about instead of providing supporting evidence. And as for your response, did you provide any evidence whatsoever discrediting my evidence, or at least tell me which issue I've only talked about while failing to back it up with evidence? No, you say I'm just talk, talk, talking about holes. So whose the one talk, talk, talking here without evidence? Do you by any chance happen to know what the definition of hypocrite is? If you can provide evidence discrediting my evidence, then let's see it. Your consistent inability to do that implies that you, ah, can't. "he has no case for Flight 93 crashing anywhere." In my original response, I listed a dozen or so seperate pieces of evidence. You've yet to present a single piece of evidence discrediting a single one of these, and instead pretend I haven't presented these pieces of evidence to you. That's your form of debate. "he does not have one picture of Flight 93 crashed ANYWHERE." You've proven to us beyond any doubt at this point that you are indeed ignoring to evidence presented to you. Yes or no: Did I link to half a dozen pictures showing United Airlines debris as well as human remains in my last post? You cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe in your statement that I don't have one picture of debris anywhere. Once again, Terral, I asked you in my last post to tell us which building you supervised which was brought down in a controlled demolition using thermite. I ended the post asking you SPECIFICALLY not to conveniently avoid answering this question. In your response, you conveniently avoided answering it. You have, instead of presenting facts and evidence discrediting the evidence against your claim, pretended that this evidence doesn't exist. Instead of defending your claim that you are a controlled demolition supervisor who has used thermite to bring down buildings, you have repeatedly avoided telling us what the name of the building was that you used thermite on. Unless you can tell us all in your next post, without avoiding the question YET AGAIN, what building you used thermite on to take down, then by default this proves that you are a liar and have never supervised any such controlled demolition. |
|
|
|
| Terral | Feb 9 2008, 03:21 PM Post #16 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi RK:
Nobody can overcome the evidence of the empty 20-feet diameter little hole where ‘you’ say a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. If you want to believe that nonsense, then mo-powa-2-ya.
Anyone can run right back up to your Post #2 to see RK doing his “talk, talk, talk” routine without addressing one thing in the Opening Post. Just how many pictures of the empty hole do you want to see? How about this one where the workers are walking around as if their PLANE is under one of those rocks? :0)
His name is RK, as this post also has more ‘talk, talk, talk’ and no evidence of a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere.
Go away RK. You are not fooling anyone with your nonsense. Start your own Flight 93 Crashed Into The Empty Hole Topic on this Shanksville Forum and actually haul out some evidence and perhaps we will have something to debate. Try not to allow that tiny little empty hole stand in your way. :0) This side of the discussion is not holding his breath . . . GL, Terral |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 10 2008, 04:15 PM Post #17 |
|
I have SHOWN you PICTURES that the hole was not an utterly empty hole in the ground. I shown you a photo of one of the engines which was embedded in the crater as well as pieces of the fuselage throughout the sides of the crater. I've explained to you that the plane impact at a steep angle faster than the speed of a bullet and then exploded, and that it is physically impossible for ANY plane to remain in one piece inside a 20 foot hole after that. If you choose to believe the absurd idea that the plane should have been sticking out of the ground like you demonstrated in a picture, then it's up to you to prove evidence of this. You are unable to do that, because as much as you want to believe that the plane not being found in one piece is evidence that it didn't crash in Shanksville, you know that this is an impossible and ridiculous idea. I've given you photo evidence. You've given a lot of talk, talk, talk with no evidence supporting your idea. And not only that, but your talk, talk, talk itself is absurd. You're never going to win an argument like that, and you certainly aren't winning this one. Face it, without any evidence backing up your claim that the plane should have been found in the hole undisturbed, you are losing this debate, my friend. I've listed 10 hard pieces of evidence that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, everything from the eyewitnesses to the majority of the plane being found in Shanksville along with the DNA of all passengers and hijackers. You have not even attempted to provide evidence disproving a single one of these. In fact, you've pretended I haven't even shown these facts to you. You have lost this debate, miserably. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 11 2008, 10:03 AM Post #18 |
|
does anyone have photos of the shanksville field with lines for the flight path that the official story says it took? I think that would pretty much settle things. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 11 2008, 10:08 AM Post #19 |
|
RK, you can't have it being swallowed by the ground and bouncing off the ground as well. The ground is either more absorbant than water, or it is elastic like rubber. Which is it? It might help if you decided what laws of physics you were going to ignore beforehand. It would keep your arguments more solid. |
|
|
|
| tharg | Feb 11 2008, 01:41 PM Post #20 |
|
The plane exploded on impact travelling at 570mph at a 40 degree angle into deep infill over a strip mine, it was carrying lots of fuel, how would you expect it to behave? It didnt bounce, it exploded, some of this explosion force blew debris upwards, some of the explosive force and the momentum of the plane forced the rest downwards creating a crater. The only item that you could describe as having "bounced" is the engine found a few hundred yards away. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 11 2008, 03:19 PM Post #21 |
|
no way man. yo ucan't have an explosion before the impact. it would have been the impact that caused the explosion(s), not the other way around. and the dirt in the crater would have been pushed in as much as the debris was. The explosion and force of impact may have been able to push things into the crater, but it would have diplaced a lot of dirt. I don't see really any displacement of dirt. And of course there's the problem that none of the debunkers want to address... and that's the fact that a plane travelling at 40 degrees to the ground wouldn't cause a crater that resembles what we see in the evidence. And there's no way that a plane impacting at 40 degrees would cause the smoke plume in McClatchey's photo. That kind of impact would have scattered debris for at least hundreds of yards, and the smoke trail would do the exact same thing. |
|
|
|
| tharg | Feb 11 2008, 03:40 PM Post #22 |
|
"no way man. yo ucan't have an explosion before the impact. it would have been the impact that caused the explosion(s), not the other way around." Where did I say that it exploded before impact? Surely the two events would have been simultaneous? "I don't see really any displacement of dirt." Then you arent looking at the same pictures, there is a very noticeable rim of pushed up dirt ,in the direction of travel at impact. "the fact that a plane travelling at 40 degrees to the ground wouldn't cause a crater that resembles what we see in the evidence." Then you had best explain why it wouldnt. |
|
|
|
| Terral | Feb 11 2008, 04:34 PM Post #23 |
|
911Truther
|
Hi Look-up:
Nobody needs any flight paths or official stories to know all of the Shanksville pictures reveal an empty 20-feet diameter hole! This is the most cut-and dried and ‘slam-dunked’ aspect of ‘the’ 911Truth that anyone here can show you. Try to guess the direction of the 100-Ton Jetliner shown in this picture. Any guesses? How come I can see a guy with a dark shirt and light pants walking in this little hole, but cannot see any sign of a real crashed Jetliner? Any clues? Let’s see if you can tell the direction of impact from this moving video shot. Any clues yet? How about from this picture with all the workers circling the empty hole, or this close-up shot with all the grass growing on all the inclines? And still some of you guys really believe ‘this’ happened in this empty field? :0) If any of you expect to prove a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty field, then at the very least start hauling out your pictures . . . GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 11 2008, 04:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| tharg | Feb 11 2008, 04:55 PM Post #24 |
|
I can tell the direction of impact from that photo "terral", its quite obvious. The hole is clearly not empty, it is full of small pieces of debris. The grass is burned exactly where you would expect grass to be burned,inside the crater, why point out areas of unburnt grass outside the crater? Why post a ridiculous image of an intact airliner standing on its nose, intact in the crater? Is this what you would have expected to happen to the plane? |
|
|
|
| Lord Tsukasa | Feb 11 2008, 10:32 PM Post #25 |
|
That is all I need to know to know that no 757 went down in Shanksville. If a 757 crashed in Shankssville, I think the explosion would cause more damage to the ground/grass/dirt. There is dirt inside the crater that is unburnt. There is grass growing on the rim of the crater that is unsinged. Whatever caused this crater, it wasn't a commercial jetliner. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic » |
9:02 PM Dec 4
