Question about Flight 93. Your thoughts?

25  2014-09-08 by HelloEvie

This morning, I was thinking about going to the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville sometime this week, and I started thinking about the events and found myself wondering this... As we all know, there was no plane at the crash site. First responders have been quoted as saying there was no debris, no plane parts, etc. To use one article: "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." Also: "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." -From Here So the question still remains (aside from "who's idiot idea was that") - where did that big hole in the ground come from? They obviously couldn't have put it there long before 9/11, as it would have risked being seen. Even if they secured the site at some point prior to dig it, wouldn't there still be evidence SOMEWHERE that somebody secured the site? So they couldn't have created the crash site too far in advance, but had to have it finished, ready, and cleared out from crew, with smoke still rising from it, in time for live coverage on 9/11. How did they put that there, and WHEN? I would think that out of all of the damning evidence, this flight's official story would be easiest to disprove. Wouldn't there be SOME sort of proof, whether it be human witness prior to September 11th, some kind of satellite image, some record, hell, Google Street-view camera car type of thing... I'm an hour and a half from Shanksville, and the site isn't THAT far away from a busy, average-sized city limits for the chance that someone seeing SOMETHING is improbable. To me, it seems MORE unbelievable that with all the years of research and fact finding people have been doing to disprove the original story, there hasn't been much at all - aside from the public's common sense - to explain away that ditch they dug and called a crash site. Anybody have any opinions?

38 comments

9  JamesColesPardon 2014-09-08

We all have our own 'WTF - How can they/we/I have bought THAT?' moments when digging into this stuff.

My favorite re F93 is that the plane landed in an 'abandoned' mine shaft:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-08-27-flight-93_x.htm

As well as >95% of it being recovered!

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

My advice: investigate enough that you know the ins and outs - and then start looking towards the present. Many things are happening RIGHT NOW that are just as BULLSHIT as 9/11, which have yet to cause the damage 9/11 did. Its up to YOU to make sure that it doesn't happen.

So here's my question for you:

Are you ready?

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

Yeah, tell me.

1  JamesColesPardon 2014-09-08

Tell you what?

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

You said "Are you ready?" I guess I misread it to mean you had a specific incident or set of circumstances in mind to discuss, when you said "Many things are happening RIGHT NOW...." Context is lost online. Sorry.

8  labatts_blue 2014-09-08

I don't know the source, but I read an article by someone who found aerial or satellite photographs of the area prior to the crash. The crater was there before the crash. He showed side by side pictures before the crash and after the crash. It was definitely the same crater.

3  Ferrofluid 2014-09-08

a slippage scar, reclaimed landfill.

1  ct_warlock 2014-09-08

That's a bit vague.

1  labatts_blue 2014-09-08

Sorry.......posted a link in another reply.

7  iamagod____ 2014-09-08

The gash in the ground is visible from years before. It appears to be a natural formation. Search "shanksville gash visible before crash". Enjoy.

2  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

I guess my overall question is, how is that NOT public knowledge? And by that, I don't mean "available to anyone who can use the search function on the internet," but even WITH the chokehold the government has much of the media and news outlets in, there are plenty of other ways that this FACT could become just as big of a news story, SOMEHOW.

2  Kuleaid 2014-09-08

how is that NOT public knowledge

Simple. They call anyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11 a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther".

Problem solved.

Here is the memo on the CIA's plan to make the term "conspiracy theorist" synonymous with crazy

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

4  stonedzombie420 2014-09-08

I think the plane was shot down/pulverized by the military. Bam bam bam bam.

5  ganooosh 2014-09-08

I remember them talking about this openly shortly after 911. Rumsfeld at some point let it slip that it was shot down.

Alot of 'fishy' things could simply be a cluster fuck of the govt not knowing what to do... or not wanting to have to admit to have killed citizens if they could say terrorists did it.

2  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

would fire by military plane PULVERIZE every piece of an aircraft, and leave absolutely nothing but some trash behind? (Not being snarky or sarcastic; genuinely asking.)

3  ct_warlock 2014-09-08

No.

1  dejenerate 2014-09-08

That was always what I figured happened, too. It was flanked by two fighter jets, waiting for the OK.

0  iamagod____ 2014-09-08

Nice. You believe the disinfo story they planted to lead credence to the official story. Hook, line, sinker.

4  sevoque 2014-09-08

dude don't you know the OFFICIAL truth about flight 93? It nose dived so fast, and such a huge speed that it BURIED itself under the earth where the crater was and THATS why there is no debris.. duh man wtf do some reading!

1  killermicrobe 2014-09-08

Wow it a makes sense now, Palpatine's behind it all!

1  shadowofashadow 2014-09-08

Just in case someone reading this post doesn't know, 93 didn't "nose dive", it went in closer to a 45 degree angle.

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

ahhhh. You know, that makes much more sense. Thank you!

3  labatts_blue 2014-09-08

http://www.whale.to/b/bollyn10feb4.html

3  hotlog 2014-09-08

do a search for "national guard flight 93 award"

It's been a while since I looked at it, and I didn't really grasp any of it at the time, but some air national guard guy received an award from the governor for shooting it down, and was then arrested...

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

oh wow. Ok, I'll google it. Thanks!

2  design-office 2014-09-08

Look at the MH17 crash photos vs Shancksville....

6  Ferrofluid 2014-09-08

all or most photos of the wreckage of MH17 shop photo-shop manipulation, errors and copy-paste artifacts.

the photos of the hooded mercs escorting the journalist around, the photos of the hooded ones standing and posing, all photoshopped.

use Bing image search, find a good sized version of a picture from MH17 , run it through fotoforensics.com.

this is Getty/AP/Reuters/AFP people doing photoshop fake pictures.

the MH17 crash site appears to have been outside rebel control before and during the MH17 media circus. the rebels had given up that area sometime previous.

here one random pic from MH17.

ELA errors galore from the copy/paste layer process.

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

I did- i think that's what made me start wondering about the Flight 93 situation again.

1  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2014-09-08

http://www.bollyn.com/the-shanksville-deception-of-9-11-2

The pre-existing trench is visible in this 1994 U.S.G.S (United States Geological Survey) map of the reclaimed mine. The crater was made directly in the middle of the trench, which suggests that this location had been carefully chosen for the Flight 93 shoot down. Were all the passengers from the different planes of 9-11 loaded onto this doomed plane at Cleveland airport?

This crater was made in the middle of the trench to provide a plausible diversion that looked like the scene of a plane crash albeit without any wreckage. The bomb crater was made directly in the middle of the pre-existing trench which indicates that the Shanksville shoot down had been carefully planned in advance. The public was told that the plane had crashed at the site of the crater while the real debris field was located in the woods beginning at a distance of about 100 meters in the woods, around the cottage of Barry Hoover.

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

Thank you guys so much for the comments! Didn't expect this much feedback, and it's really morbidly interesting and eye-opening. Do the master minds behind 9/11 ACTUALLY think we are THAT stupid? I just can't get over the fact they did such a shitty job, as if it never occurred to them that people who raise hell about there being no plane in any pics of the Pentago attack, or the fact that the buildings began to collapse demolition style... or that a flight that crashes in Shanksville should leave carnage much bigger than the chunk a golf club takes from grass.

On a 9/11 message board the other day, I read this theory: "Flight 93 was originally intended to hit WTC 7, which was already rigged like the twin towers. When it was overtaken, and when whatever happened to it after that point (which still remains unclear. but was undoubtedly NOT anticipated by the govt), they had to scramble to create two new stories: 1) A reason why WTC7 collapsed. 2) A reason that the plane completely disintegrated upon crashing.

When I read this, I was thinking, omg... that makes total sense. That would explain why in some reports, Cheney was muttering something about 'pulling it', with some commentary about how they rigged it that day because the building was unsafe. And, of course, there was the "it was just too damaged/it was way too hot, so it melted" story.

It also explains how they took a previously existing crater, emptied their recycling bins into in and threw in a match stick.

Did anybody else realize how fast the documentaries aired after 9/11, on how the towers fell, what exactly caused them to fall, HOW they fell... etc.? I'd be generous if I said it was even a month afterward. but it was like they already had these documentaries prepared to nip in the bud any "wait, that can't happen, because physics...." thoughts among the public. I mean, these docs were complete with detailed digital reconstruction of the skeletons of the towers, interviews with the person who designed it, who said he designed them to withstand such a disaster, and that the plane hitting one of the towers would (should) be like stabbing a pencil through a window screen. The integrity of the rest of the structed would remain in tact.

0  bittermanscolon 2014-09-08

The whole thing is disgustingly transparent now, mostly because of this and Flt77 at the Pentagon and WTC7 obviously.

0  pitilesscensor 2014-09-08

"it looks like somebody dug a ditch, threw a bunch of scrap metal and trash into it, and then blew it up." - paraphrasing Jim Fetzer

-5  trywhen 2014-09-08

As we all know, there was no plane at the crash site

All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts

This is what to expect from a crash site. Small, charred plane parts. If you found a whole plane, I'd be far more skeptical.

To me, it seems MORE unbelievable that with all the years of research and fact finding people have been doing to disprove the original story, there hasn't been much at all - aside from the public's common sense - to explain away that ditch they dug and called a crash site. Anybody have any opinions?

You seem to be doubting the "official story" on the conspiracy side.

Good luck to you here.

3  Ferrofluid 2014-09-08

the fake and the real

2  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

Thanks for the "good luck." But I came in here ready for a discussion, not a one-sided debate, so a little less snark would be appreciated. I think I worded that paragraph wrong; I can see how it could be misinterpreted but I was not doubting the "offical story" on the conspiracy side.

1  trywhen 2014-09-08

I'm on your side on this one, you might have misread sarcasm for snark. Not directed at you, by the way.

I don't believe flight 93 was faked, mainly because nobody has provided anything but conjecture, "nanothermite", and expert testimony from people who are not experts in the field.

1  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

Understood. Sorry for the quick assumption. I actually read somewhere that Flight 93 was headed for WTC 7 - so I agree that it wasn't faked, but I think they weren't expecting passengers to bring it down (obviously.) Unfortunately, the building had already been rigged, so they to scramble to put together an explanation for its collapse, AND find someplace to use as a crash site. Where the airplane actually WENT... that's still a major mystery because it sure as hell wasn't in Shanksville. But i think they took advantage of a crater that was already there.

the more and more research I do.... the cockier they seem. They were sure beyond a shadow of a doubt they could pull this off seamlessly, but they did a piss poor job at making sure every detail was as it would be in real life (aside from the lives loss, I do not mean to discount them, bless their souls.)

2  shadowofashadow 2014-09-08

This is what to expect from a crash site. Small, charred plane parts

Got any examples of this? Because every time I've seen a plane fly into the ground it leaves very large and obviously recognizable plane parts.

1  trywhen 2014-09-08

Got any examples of this?

1  dejenerate 2014-09-08

That was always what I figured happened, too. It was flanked by two fighter jets, waiting for the OK.

0  iamagod____ 2014-09-08

Nice. You believe the disinfo story they planted to lead credence to the official story. Hook, line, sinker.

5  ganooosh 2014-09-08

I remember them talking about this openly shortly after 911. Rumsfeld at some point let it slip that it was shot down.

Alot of 'fishy' things could simply be a cluster fuck of the govt not knowing what to do... or not wanting to have to admit to have killed citizens if they could say terrorists did it.

2  HelloEvie 2014-09-08

would fire by military plane PULVERIZE every piece of an aircraft, and leave absolutely nothing but some trash behind? (Not being snarky or sarcastic; genuinely asking.)