Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

 

Sources provided for those that will look.

 

OK lets put an end to this...

A pic of the flight 93 crash scene:


A pic of a similar crash on land:


Note the curious absence of plane parts in the flight 93 pic?

Now...the plane was buried? Has that ever happened before?


Ouch! Looks like this plane did a "face-plant" but still wasn't buried. Interesting...and for the life of me, I can't find another instance where a plane crashed into the ground, and was completely buried.

Another plane that mysteriously disintegrates? What...2 in 1 morning?

Boy...that's a BIG FISH story.

Perhaps its time to get REAL?

 

If you go to the OP, you'll see the entire premise of this thread was predicated on the author using another posters comments from an old (and now locked) thread as the actual topic of this thread.

So, the topic at hand was based purely on the comments of an individual poster.

Just saying.....

 

LOL...ya...and besides...

Planes do not disintegrate when they hit the ground.
Nor do they get buried and leave little to no trace of their existence.

Just saying...

 

"Little to no traces" were found for miles around, not just in the impact crater.

Just saying....

You're correct, aircraft don't disintegrate when they hit the ground at very high speeds.

 

You are aware that picture is photoshopped, aren't you?

Who ever claimed that UA93 was completely buried?

 

Funny how that small plane left more debris behind than that large plane!

 

Did it now?

 

Did it not?

 

Considering the debris field was exponentially larger due to the F-ma, and a lot of the debris was found in the ground, on the ground, in the trees, in the lake, etc, you tell me?

Was every piece of debris from United 93 immediately visible at the crash site like this airshow crash? Answer: no, but you already knew that you honest debater.

Carry on.

 

Its mathematically proven that no shoot down was possible.

I mean, 1 mph is about 1.5 feet per second, right? The plane was going about 500 mph so 750 feet per second it was traveling when this supposed missile took it down.

At 30,000 feet, the plane would still be moving quite fast but decelerating all the while on the way down. But as the 750' per second becomes increasingly less and less, it is still moving forward...in the first 10 seconds the plane would have traveled another over a mile (10 X 750=7,500 feet). How long does something take to fall 30,000 feet? Well, the towers at about 1,000 feet tall fell in over 10 seconds. So at 30,000 feet, that would be 30 times as long for 300 seconds;

For the first 100 of those 300 seconds (more or less), the plane is traveling over a mile forward, still eventhough it was shot down supposedly. Over the next 20 seconds without the propulsion of engines, the distance traveled would be less of course but still significant. Take your foot off the gas pedal next time you're going 70 on the freeway; time 10 seconds and you'll likely still be doing about 50 mph. You've lost less than 50% of your velocity.

Therefore, we could estimate the debris field as being about 20 miles in diameter on the low side if there was a shoot down at 30,000 feet which we know there was not.

But even more problematic for the twoofers is that when there is an explosion, debris goes in a 720 degree pattern. So some of the flight 93 weckage would be hurled up into the air at this point and spend even longer drifting. If 93 were shot down, the wreckage would have extended likely in to Maryland.

No way it happend.

 

The passengers "crashed it", sounds better than they "shot it down". Alleviates any responsibility or scrutiny.

 

You mean like "eyewitness testimony"?

 

Is there any evidence that the plane was shot down? The claim that 93 was shot down by our gov't seems to be a central tenet of the 9/11 conspiracy movement but I haven't been able to find any evidence to corroborate it. I would really like to hear an explanation of how 93 was shot down. Downing a large airliner and concealing the evidence/ making it look like it crashed is a very complicated task to say the least.

Personally, I think their are some serious flaws in the 9/11 commission report to the point that I believe a 9/11 conspiracy exists albeit not to the degree that many on this forum do. I have no doubts that numerous gov't agencies committed perjury before the commission but I have not seen any credible evidence to indicate that we were attacked by anyone other than muslim extremists. However, I am very opened minded about the topic and if anyone would like to explain an alternate explanation for 93 I'm all ears. I would be interesting in hearing the gov't motive, the methods employed to shoot down the aircraft as well as the manner in which the evidence was concealed.

 

Well, if we consider "eyewitness testimony" as evidence, well, have a look here.....http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html

 

Please provide a citation where the FBI has made such a claim. The National Transportation Safety Board are who determined the cause the crash.

 

Either can they.

They just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. When ask, if it did not happen the way claimed, the OP states it was "a stupid question."

 

Yes, there are several eyewitnesses.

 

I don't consider that article to be credible evidence for a number of reasons. First, the American Free Press is not a credible news organization. I could elaborate on that however I think that anyone who can't recognize or admit the journalistic deficiencies of the American Free Press is incapable of rational and objective thought. Furthermore, Christopher Bollyn's publications are very dubious- again, if you can't admit that Bollyn is not a credible journalist you are not being objective. As for the story itself, if an attack on 93 was ordered by the gov't why would the use an A-10 to do it? The A-10 is a ground attack aircraft (nearest AFB with an A-10 squadron is in Georgia) ill suited for AA engagements. Whats more, anonymous eye witness is not convincing for a variety of reasons.

Ultimately, if you can not recognize the inherent problems with that source/ story you are not being intellectually honest. I'm not saying its impossible but there is little there to support a Air to Air engagement of 93. Is that all the evidence there is?

 

What source would you consider "valid"? I'm curious. (I have more).

 

Why do you need a citation? What do you disagree with that supposedly happened?

 

I'm kind of wondering what you think is valid? Most periodicals with a history of credible investigative reporting would suffice. Got anything from the New Yorker?

 

Fresh out of New Yorker pieces, but this encapsulates the narrative reasonably well. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html