Flight 93's tail section is M.I.A.

We are told a 757 nose dived and crashed into the soft soil of an old strip mine in Shanksville, PA then buried itself underground and left this crater:



First point: It left deep wing imprints in the soft soil, and if it got buried underground, it had to leave an imprint from its large tail somewhere:




There is a imprint to the left of the deep wing imprint in the following photo that is the size and shape of a 757's tail, so it must have been made by the vertical tail:



This imprint is weird though in that it's slightly crooked and it looks like it just left a "soft" imprint in the grass and didn't penetrate the soft soil.

Tail sections usually survive plane crashes:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010817121756/


So a large tail hits at 580mph in Shanksville, only leaves a soft imprint in the soft soil then the entire tail section disappears without a trace? There is no sign of a large tail section which usually is the last part of a plane to survive a plane crash.




Second point: Why is there no fire damage to the tall dry grass outside the crater from any of the 5,500 gallons of fuel on board?




Third point, how come this red bandana didn't get shredded (or dirty) from all the jagged and sharp aluminum and steel shrapnel from the plane tearing apart from the impact and has no blood marks from the hijackers head it was wrapped around?




I think the coroner said it best:




http://www.explosive911analysis.com/Flight%2093.html

Looks like a winter picture. Kind of odd...if it was still in it's original state, I guess they hadn't dug out the plane yet.

Did they ever collect all the parts and try to put the plane back together? I know they usually do this as a part of the investigation, but AFAIK, none of the 9/11 planes have been reassembled. I understand that the cause of the crash is known, but I would be mighty concerned about learning why these planes shattered completely into tiny fragments. You'd think large sections would be broken off at impact. If the entire plane got swallowed up by the Earth, then there ought to have been a rather significant sections of fuselage, wing, and engines that was extricated from the ground.

This can't be the first airliner to go vertical into the ground...I'd like to see other crash sites of similar type planes that hit the ground perpedicular to surface. Do they all have the same end result?

They said they found over 90% of the plane! They wouldn't put it back together cause "they knew" why it crashed.

Notice that they only use small backhoes to unearth the crater. How did they know no large section of the plane remained?



There have been other nosedive crashes that left debris (although skeptics will say those crash speeds were less than 93):

USAir Flight 427


United Airlines Flight 585



But don't get sidetrack, it's impossible for a large heavy tail to disappear while only leaving a soft imprint in the grass.

I found that disturbing.

I know it was a shocker for me. Like you, I believed the fake footaged for years.

Hey, Anarcho-Socialist, there's another one for your "CT Terminology" list.

n/t

The footage as it happened on networks is on youtube. the planes don't look real. Sometimes they are coming in level sometimes at a steep angle. They are missing wings and tail parts and they go into the buildings without damaging the building. look for yourself. oh, and in one shot I found there is no plane at all just an explosion. The witnesses are half saw a plane, half didn't. the people who were right there are shocked to hear that there was a plane, until they are told there was by the anchor watching it on his monitor. Even one of the reporters watching it didn't see a plane, then later says it was because he was not on the right side , but still he saw the explosions and was shocked to hear there was a plane. They were using very high tech military cameras and yet the footage is grainy and in no shots can you see any details of the "planes" or the buildings. why is that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOGlcatpDA

"attack on south tower," and it's really freaky--those explosions and flames and no visible planes.

no plane and kaboom. It wasn't behind the buildings either because the shot directly after is from approximately the same angle and has a little blob coming in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOGlcatpDA

These do not look the same to me. The "plane" at the very beginning of the above and this. This one seems to be diving and the one above flat which contradicts what the atc said.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bwMWc-3H6v8

You're using video from YouTube as evidence? And complaining about grainy footage?



This has to be some sort of joke. Not funny, either.

depend on the camera and expertise of the photographer? Are all youtube videos "grainy footage"?

Just asking.

but I'm not sure (it may be less - they recommend 320x240). This necessarily reduces the information per frame in any video, creating "grainy footage" out of pretty much anything.

On reflection, I think it has been converted to greyscale, the better to emphasize the neat airline template imprinted on the ground.

A little too neat dont ya think? Not only did the ground open up and swallow 93, it closed over behind it. We have a recognisable imprint of a large aircraft on the ground but no parts on the surface. Cool, that means they must be underground, intact - if they were to leave that imprint. I mean, they can't have it both ways. The aircraft was either buried or it wasn't. It either flew into a brazillian pieces or it didn't.

Think of an aluminium can smashed flat and buried.

Think of that aircraft planting itself under the ground with such force as to flatten it and its contents, and bury itself under the earth.

Think that maybe the imprint you all are considering to be the tail imprint isn't, and that the plane dug into the ground upside down, 180 degrees from what you are talking about.

Think that after that first explosion, the ground muffled any fire.

Think at what you are looking at.

Think.

absorbing energy.

Oops wait, peer review is taboo in this forum. Also you linked to a msm source, as we all know the media are in on it with their disinfo!! Don't believe the msm!

Or why the NTSB didn't file a full public report about Flight 93?

Or how the crash supposedly managed to ballistically jettison dense metal debris to sites miles away from the impact crater without registering the slightest seismic blip (until 3 minutes after it crashed, of course)?

Specifically, foremost forensic seismologist Terry Wallace has no idea what to make of the 9/11 Commission's insistence that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 rather than 10:06 EDT.

The forensics of the crater prove no 757 crashed there and that's all we need.

it could have been planted beforehand or after the fact
strikes me as strange. Does anyone know where the other
engine went?

Since the site is so clean, do you suppose maybe the plane
was eaten by a giant sandworm?

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610456,00.jpg

Exh. GX-P200060 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. (Source: www.rcfp.org)

- Make7

Do you think the engine would wind up only two feet into the ground if the
rest of the plane disappeared? One suspects it was moved. How come all
the pictures show engines after they've been moved? What was the original
location?

The investigation sucks.

Your investigation sucks.

been to Shanksville.

However, the little investigation I HAVE done shows
that the official investigation of 93 sucks.

You have put together some random facts, overlaid a number of gross inaccuracies onto them, and with that, you claim to be able to judge people who spent a few months digging the remains of people like Mark Bingham out of the earth.

You have no idea of the offense you give when you support these ghastly lies.

Petgoat is a homophobe!!! and , I might add, an anti -Semite, since there are websites that blame 9-11 on Israel (That's the way this kind of logic works right?)

As do you.

Denial of the man's existance and death is an insult, miranda. Your clowning about it is reprehensible.

We just want to know when and how exactly he died.

Because the official story is crap.

"Mom, this is Mark Bingham!"

Yes. Didn't you know that when 9/11 occurred it caused a reversal of the laws of physics where objects of different weight can be dropped from the same height, and the lighter of the two objects will bury itself deeper into the ground than than the lighter object. Remember what they keep telling us, "9/11 changed everything.":sarcasm: Thanks.
quickesst

They are telling us the had to dig 15ft to find the plane and one of the heaviest/strongest parts of the plane only manages to bury itself 2ft underground!

Got anymore pics of planted debris?!

when are people going to realize this whole thing is a big lie.

And your casual dismissal of this site is not respectful of the people who perished here.

Maybe the 10:06 time is wrong. Maybe the 10:03 time is wrong, or maybe both the times are wrong. Please contact Terry Wallace immediately and unbefuddle him. It's probably driving him crazy.

know what to make the 10:03 time claimed by the 9/11 Commission.

If he knows the 10:06 time isn't wrong, then the 10:03 time must be. That wasn't so hard, was it?

world, because they need to compare the times of arrival of the s and p
waves with the times of arrival at other stations so they can triangulate
the epicenters of earthquakes.

What was it's accuracy?


Also a minor point in that there was no earthquake. Seismographs are designed to measure earthquakes not surface impacts, so the accuracy of the seismograph (not the clock it uses) may be different when applied in this fashion.

from the investigation, we can't.

Four planes. Four crashes. Not one able to be reconstucted. You wouldn't get those odds on any racecourse.

 



- Make7

:rofl:

"I've looked at well over a half-dozen photos on the net, and I don't understand what happened. That's all we need to prove no 757 crashed there." :rofl:

usual thorough analysis of a plane crash. In a New York Observer article that
points out that the crash time for 93 has been variously reported at 10:03,
10:06, and 10:10 former DoT Inspector General Mary Schiavo is quoted:

"We dont have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here,
and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LLtxdFCgBBAJ:www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/M.A.Sweeney.pdf+mary+schiavo+observer+ntsb&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

Normally plane crashes are investigated by competent scientists. By declaring
9/11 to be an act of war instead of a crime, competent investigators were excluded.

> Normally plane crashes are investigated by competent scientists.

Normally, plane crashes are accidents, and the cause of the accident requires scientific analysis.

> By declaring 9/11 to be an act of war instead of a crime, competent investigators were excluded.

It was treated as a crime, not an accident. The NTSB investigates accidents, not crimes. What's your basis for claiming that "competent investigators were excluded?" Only the NTSB has "competent investigators?" And what's your basis for implying that there couldn't have been any "scientific analysis" unless the NTSB led the investigation?

> "We dont have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

The timeline on the plane, perhaps so. When trying to figure out why a plane crashed, it would important to know that one thing happened immediately after another. To think that the wallclock times at NORAD and FAA installations and seismological stations would be synced to thousandths of a second is preposterous.

If the seismological recording wasn't the plane, then what was it? If the plane crashed at a different time than the seismological recording you're talking about, why didn't it cause a second reading? Or if that crater isn't the plane debris, then what is it, and what happened to the plane? Why don't you speculate what you think happened and then use what you take as facts to support that speculation? Oh, that's right; you're "just asking questions."

And ignoring the answers.

If the seismological recording wasn't the plane, then what was it?

Good question. I don't think there's been an answer.

If the plane crashed at a different time than the seismological recording
you're talking about, why didn't it cause a second reading?

Another good question, and one not answered.

I don't think you're aware that the 9CR says the plane crashed at 10:03,
that the seismographic evidence is that it crashed at 10:06, that there
is no seismic disturbance at 10:03, that the difference is the amount
of time necessary to put the C-130H on the scene, and that the cockpit
voice recorder tape seems to have a long gap at the end.

That the C-130 shot down the plane?

Perhaps the next time the subject comes up you could rephrase how you characterize the NTSB involvement - there is plenty of information to indicate that they were not excluded from the investigation.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC_ Report_AA11.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC_ Report_AA77.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC _Report_UA175.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC _Report_UA93.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path_ Study_AA11.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path_ Study_AA77.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path _Study_UA175.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf

- Make7

usual investigation, they were excluded.

If somebody comes in and sits down at my desk and starts
doing my job, I'm excluded no matter how much "assistance"
I am permitted to provide.

You do realize that you would encounter much less hostility from us "OCTers" if you didn't pull this crap, right?



Edit: misc

Suggestions from me would necessarily reflect my bias in these matters. Because I think it is important for you to express as clearly as possible your thoughts, I'd rather avoid "flavoring" anything that you would say (regardless of how I might disagree with the content).

The english language probably has the word you need (at over half a million words it covers a lot) and the internet surely has tools that can assist you in that search. But please don't take this lightly - as Lakeoff (and others) have illustrated, language does matter.

diction to straighten it.

So how do you know I've perverted it?

Maybe I should have said "NTSB was prevented from conducting an investigation."

Was it NTSB that claimed that the debris 8 miles away blew there on the wind
from the crash site?

I explained why I won't (not "can't") provide suggestions. Perhaps you could take your time and read it slowly - this helps with comprehension.

It's real simple.

1) Tail mark left on grass.
2) Doesn't penetrate soft soil.
3) Tail is no where to be seen.

=

Impossible.

It is not impossible.

It happened.

The plane and the remains of its passengers were dug out of that crater.

You do not know what you are speaking about.

I've been thinking about the alleged bandana, and wondering about the process of handling evidence.

Say that it was indeed the one taken from the plane site. In which case, it would be permeated with smoke and fragments of plane and bits of human remains, maybe even a bloodborne illness that no police employees would handle without sufficient safeguards.

But if you put it in a baggie and just leave it for a couple of years, your chances of having it disintegrate from mold and rot are pretty good. Let alone maybe not even being able to recognize it as bandana cloth when the trial comes around.

So do they maybe take some random swabs of it for the record, and then wash it or dry clean it in some fashion?

Anybody know?

...and tossed it in a corner.

...the force of a plane hitting the ground

...thousands of shards of glass, plastic, and metal whirring like tiny knives

...blood, guts, bone, sinew and seed of the hijacker who tossed it

...fire from the impact of a jet loaded with fuel

...wrinkles from the entire mass of a 757 coming down upon it

They don't normally Scotchgard (tm) cheap cotton bandana fabric. So I guess we'd better settle for reverent expressions on our faces and soft murmurrings of

"It's a miracle!"

It's not a miracle - it's the way things are.

Stating that small light things "always" survive crashes in general is a meaningless generalization that can't be universally true. Some small light things might survive some crashes, but not "always."

I've previously discussed in great detail some of the claims made concerning a red piece of cloth and the hijackers. I have good reason to think that the piece of red fabric in the Moussauai evidence bag is not what they are implying it is. There is no particular reason to think it belonged to a hijacker rather than a female passenger. And if it can't be directly linked to a hijacker, it has no reason being used as evidence in a trial.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105099&mesg_id=105342

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=82548&mesg_id=83866

http://www.cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-030706-02.htm

At 9:50 a.m., flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw called her
6 husband and told him that her plane had been hijacked by three men
7 with knives. She described all three men as looking Islamic and
8 that they had put red bandanas on their heads. Ms. Bradshaw said
9 that she was with the majority of the passengers who had been
10 herded to the back of the plane, but a small group of passengers
11 remained in first class.

Q. And finally, Agent Fitzgerald, I would like you to hold up
7 for the jury to see Exhibit PA-111. Tell us what that is and
8 where it was found.
9 A. This is a red bandana which was recovered at the crash site
10 of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

Now this COULD have belonged to a female passenger, or a male passenger.

But we have a statement from people on the plane that the hijackers were wearing red bandanas. We have a bandana recovered at the site, which is folded in a manner consistent with being tied around the head.

I feel quite confident in labeling this a bandana from one of the terrorists. You can do as you like.

If you would actually read what I said in the linked material, that item in the bag is not a bandana. What we commonly know of as a bandana is square, and is not long enough to allow it to be folded the way the fabric in the bag is. I have described the length it appears to be.

It appears to be a red sash made of bandana-type material. But a belt is not a bandana.

The hijacker with the "bomb" is described as attaching it to himself with a red "sash."

You've made a good point. The item in the picture isn't shaped right for a square bandana, but it does look like bandana material.

And since hijackers are described as wearing actual bandanas...

The exhibit could be a sash made from bandanas, sewn together to make an attachment for the "bomb."

Here is what gives me pause: you seem to think that since this isn't a square bandana, Bush must have planned 9/11. Tell me that isn't so.

I spent some time contrasting Shanksville with the Lockerbie incident at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x123700#124232

It's amazing how they can reconstruct aircraft after horrendous accidents.

This plane was performing at peak efficiency when Ziad Jarrah slammed it into the earth at top speed.

There is no question as to why this plane crashed, not in the real world. There was nothing to be gained by reconstructing the plane.

I know, I know. You think the plane was shot down. I have yet to hear a plausible reason why anyone in the government would cover up such an event. We now know that the shootdown order was too late for implementation with Flight 93, and that it was never even intercepted. The NORAD tapes make this clear.

"This plane was performing at peak efficiency when Ziad Jarrah slammed it into the earth at top speed."

Unless we see the black boxes and do a reconstruction, it's conjecture to say the plane "was performing at peak efficiency" or that it hit the ground "at top speed."

"There is no question as to why this plane crashed, not in the real world. There was nothing to be gained by reconstructing the plane."

There are plenty of questions in the "real world", but precious few in the virtual reality of the OCT. And there is a hell of a lot to "be gained by reconstructing the plane." They do it routinely in other accident investigations even when they think they know the cause.

"I know, I know. You think the plane was shot down."

How do you know what I think? Hell, I have no idea what happened; that's why I'd like to see a thorough, independent investigation.

"I have yet to hear a plausible reason why anyone in the government would cover up such an event."

How about to cover their own ass? That's the oldest reason in the world to do a cover-up. What are they covering up? I don't know and neither do you. All we both have is conjecture.

The downing of Flight 93 was not an accident. The NTSB had no jurisdiction. They still were able to provide over 80 people to assist the FBI.

You have no idea what happened, and you stubbornly cling to your ignorance despite all evidence to the contrary.

Your reason for a cover up is a tautology. The reason that they covered up was to cover up? You have conjecture, I have the facts. There is a difference.

Wow, and you still have time to hang out here.

Imagine how important you are, to our security and the facts and all.

Both black boxes were recovered at the site. The families of the passengers were allowed to listen to the cockpit voice recorder.

Your attacks on me are petty and demean you.

Well, if indeed I "have no idea what happened", I am certainly not clinging to my ignorance by calling for a thorough, independent investigation, am I?

It seems as if those who "know" what happened are the ones clinging to ignorance.

But we shan't know until there is a thorough, independent investigation, shall we?

passengers regained control of the cockpit.

It was an accident if the plane came apart while
the hijackers were attempting to disrupt a passenger
assault through violent motions.

The fighter jets never intercepted 93.

They had no shootdown clearance. They had people telling them specifically that they had no shootdown clearance.

There was no shootdown.

It was not an accident if Jarrah shook the plane to pieces in his effort to stop the passengers from taking over the plane. And anyway, the CVR shows that Jarrah's evasive actions were followed by a deliberate ditching of the plane. He flew it into the ground.

It was not an accident. It was not under the jurisdiction of the NTSB. It should not have been under the NTSB's jurisdiction. The NTSB was still involved in the FBI's investigation.

The sooner you abandon your unsustainable position, the sooner you will reach the truth.

The fighter jets never intercepted 93.

How do you know? You taking NORAD's word for it, after their story keeps
changing, and the 9/11 Commission considered referring them to the Justice
Department?

They had people telling them specifically that they had no shootdown
clearance.

Don Corleone told me not to kill Sollozo but maybe he told someone else
to do it.

It was not an accident if Jarrah shook the plane to pieces in his effort
to stop the passengers from taking over the plane.

Oh, Jarrah shook the plane to pieces on purpose? If so, it was an unprecedented
scientific opportunity to examine an airframe stressed to failure, one lost
forever because the government wanted to claim they already knew what happened.

the CVR shows that Jarrah's evasive actions were followed by a deliberate
ditching of the plane. He flew it into the ground.

How do you know?

We know what happened that day, despite NORAD's changed story.

Provide your proof that "someone else" shot down Flight 77. This is not a request for "stuff from plane way over here" rhetoric. This is a request for the identities of anyone else in the military in the air with weaponry loaded. Notice how that doesn't include the C130.

Did I say Jarrah shook the plane apart on purpose? No, I did not. I said Jarrah deliberately dove into the ground, just as the CVR shows. The transcripts of the CVR are available.

Ah, the transcripts. And who prepared the transcripts?

The stuff in the 9CR about al Qaeda is based on transcripts
of interviews with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. At one time
the Commissioners discussed the idea that maybe they should
go have a talk with Mr. Mohammed, or at least listen in real
time to the interviews on the phone.

They decided not to take the trouble.

Provide your proof that "someone else" shot down Flight 77.

Demands for proof when you know there is no proof are disingenous.
That's what a philandering husband does when his wife suspects he's
having an affair.

Have you read Dr. Griffin's analysis of the NORAD tapes? (Haven't had
time, myself.)

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006091418303369

"Who prepared the transcript?"

The knee-jerk question of every bit of evidence is something you have to do. I understand that. You are seeking to support an unsupportable proposition. You have to try something.

I don't know who prepared the transcript, but it was entered into evidence in a US trial. If you can obtain an actual recording of the CVR (and I understand that they are out there...), then you can submit it to an Arabic translator of your choice, and determine if the government falsified evidence in the Moussaoui trial. I'm sure Moussaoui would be pleased to hear about a possible vacating of his plea and sentencing.

I'm sure his lawyers would have examined it, but Moussaoui fired them all and defended himself. No doubt this was part of the plot, right?

Your only reason to doubt the transcript is because it conflicts with your theory. That isn't a compelling reason for anyone else.

I don't know enough about the transcript to accept or doubt it.

Since the NTSB was shunted aside and prevented from conducting its
usual thorough investigation, since the 9/11 Commission claims a
crash time inconsistent with physical (seismographic) reality, which
inconsistency jibes with the possibility of a CVR gap and proximity
of the C-130H, since NORAD has no credibility, since the FAA appears
to have been intimidated, since NTSB to my knowledge has not disputed
the ludicrous official story that the Indian Lake debris was wafted
8 miles on the breeze, yes...

I want to know who prepared the transript.

The NTSB was not shunted aside - they had no jurisdiction.

The 9CR's crash time is based on the converenge of "FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets" into a one-second range of error. The seismic data is an outlier, and one of the people responsible for that outlier interpretation says that it's not definitive. There is no three-minute gap with "reality."

The C130 raises so many conspiracist hackles, but they have nothing but rank speculation about it - your post is a fine darkwoven example.

NORAD has no credibility in your mind. That does not translate to a blanket condemnation.

The FAA does appear to have been intimidated - in the report of their response vs. the military's. Not in the report of this crash time. The military didn't have a weapons-loaded fighter jet anywhere near Flight 93, and any jets streaking that way had no shootdown order. They had nothing re: the Flight 93 response to lean on the FAA about.

8 miles on the breeze is baloney. Indian Lake is 1.5 miles from the crash site. The wind was blowing that direction. Light objects could have easily drifted onto the lake and been carried the rest of the way by the lake.

Considering your demonstrated discernment powers, why should anyone trust you with the knowledge of who prepared the transcript?

The 9CR's crash time is based on the converenge of "FDR, CVR, ATC, radar,
and impact site data sets" into a one-second range of error.

Yes, I know the 9CR footnote makes that claim. None of that data is available
to the public, so how do you know they're telling the truth?

one of the people responsible for that outlier interpretation says that it's
not definitive.

And who is that interpreting the outlier data? Are you claiming the seismographic
clocks are wrong? All of them? THREE MINUTES OFF?

The C130 raises so many conspiracist hackles, but they have nothing but rank
speculation about it

Spin as you may, there is no denying the FACT that at the time of the seismographic
event, the C-130H would have been right on the scene at Shanksville.

The military didn't have a weapons-loaded fighter jet anywhere near Flight 93,
and any jets streaking that way had no shootdown order.

Where do you get this stuff?

Light objects could have easily drifted onto the lake

The eastern debris field includes heavy objects.

why should anyone trust you with the knowledge of who prepared the transcript?

Oh, you're saying the identity of the preparer is a National Security triple axel cross
your heart and masturbate in a coffin secret? Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, you're saying the identity of the preparer is a National Security triple axel cross
your heart and masturbate in a coffin secret?

I don't care who you are: that's funny.

Look, I can't really comment right now, because I'm on vacation and I'm super secret drunk, but the only thing that interests me at this point is where you get the idea that heavy objects were found further away from the site.

Okay, I'm out. Peace.

I am enjoying this interchange between you and Petgoat. Both of you are advancing some good points, and the points seem to be made without the usual put-downs this forum seems to be famous for.

Just wanted to say "thank you".

:-)

And you know this how?

There were reports that the plane was flying upside down. There were
reports of violent wing-wagging. There are reports that it struck
the ground at well above its design speed. Is it not possible that
the plane came apart in the air from airframe stress, and that this
fact is being covered up to protect the reputation of Boeing's product?

There were reports that the hijackers claimed to have a bomb. Is it
not possible that this bomb was detonated while the plane was in the
air, which might explain Edward Felt's testimony in his phone call,
which would explain the whooshing noises, and which would explain
the 3 minute gap in the tape and thus the three minute time disrepancy
from the seismographic time, and also explain the side debris field?
Is it not possible that the existence of this bomb is being covered up
to protect Logan Airport Security or UAL security?

And how can you be so confident the plane was not brought down by
conventional air to air weapons or unconventional electromagnetic ones?
Is it not possible that the plane was shot down, and this fact was
covered up after the information of the passengers' assault on the
cockpit came to light?

You are awful quick to come to the judgement that you're not being
lied to.

Am I allowed to be confident that the Alpha Centaurians did not shoot down Flight 93 from their moon base?

Boeing's reputation would not need to be protected from the breakup of a plane being flown upside down, being deliberately shaken, and going faster than its design speed upright. Talk sense.

The hijacker with the "bomb" was the first hijacker overcome by the passengers. He had remained with them. If the bomb didn't explode at that point, why would it explode later?

No, it is not possible that a shootdown was covered up after information of the passengers' assault came to light. a) there was no shootdown, b) an admission of a shootdown was in the interests of the United States.

I've spent four years here talking with you good people, ready at any moment to change my mind should actual evidence be presented. It has not been. I don't care if you believe me or not.

Boeing's reputation would not need to be protected

It certainly would. In case you haven't noticed, airlines are in
financial trouble these days.



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060326/ai_n16174874

Talking about aircraft coming apart in the sky would be bad for business.

The hijacker with the "bomb" was the first hijacker overcome by the
passengers.

If they had a bomb in the luggage, they would probably have a fake prop bomb
in the passenger compartment to make credible their claims, so the supposed
disarming of that passenger does not undo the possibility of a bomb.

there was no shootdown

You keep saying this as if you know

an admission of a shootdown was in the interests of the United States

How's that? The way they played it worked just fine. 1) Cheney made the tough
decision like a ball-player (but safely after the plane was already down),
2) people who read between the lines can believe it might have been shot down,
and 3) heroic passengers spearheaded the charge against the terrorists.

Admitting they shot it down would be bad for business. It would upset children,
and that would upset their parents. It would damage the mythic status of the
heroic passengers. It would lead to questions about the 3 minute time discrepancy,
the missing parts of the CVR, the secrecy of the black boxes. "What really happened?"
would become the story. As it is, the media are so enamored of the "let's roll" story
they won't do anything to damage it even if it's completely untrue.

There are no questions about Flight 93 because you assert there are no questions about Flight 93.

However:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=20744

after it only left a soft impression in the grass and didn't penetrate the "soft soil"?

> This imprint is weird though in that it's slightly crooked and it looks like it just left a "soft" imprint in the grass and didn't penetrate the soft soil.

Explanation: Your "forensic" analysis is not based on fact. It's based on what things "look like" to you in a couple of photos. Imaginary descriptions of what happened do not require explanations.

Anything else I can help you with?

How is your response an answer to that question?

Seems to me, if the plane went straight in, we'd have 3/4 of the plane buried and a large portion of the last 1/4 of the plane broken off on the top. If the remains of the plane was 45' below the surface, was the entire 150' length compressed into that space?

He asked for an explanation of what happened to the tail "after it only left a soft impression in the grass and didn't penetrate the 'soft soil.'"

If you would like to rephrase the question to just be "what happened to the tail," my best guess is that it appears to have been buried in the ground. Of course, if someone wanted to ask that question seriously and honestly, you would need to ask someone who investigated the crash scene, not a bunch of people who looked at a couple of photos on the net. But that doesn't appear to have been the purpose of the question.

This is a discussion board and things get discussed here. I don't happen to know any of the investigators and I'm interested to hear what different people who post here think. And I think your intention is to get people to stop discussing anything related to 9/11.

> This is a discussion board and things get discussed here.

Ain't that the truth. But if anyone should insert into this discussion that bushatbooker is trying to weave a mystery out of his own ignorance and faulty logic, based on looking at some photos on the net, and is then inviting others to either jump to the same faulty conclusions or to attempt to explain to him why he doesn't understand what happened to that plane's tail -- that makes you suspicious about their motives? Well, sorry, but that makes me suspicious about what the words "seriously" and "honestly" mean to you. Or "discussion" for that matter.

the whole thing was a fake

nt

We were duped at Shanksville, when is everybody going to wake up?

When will people learn that peer-review and technical expertise just don't cut it.

and remember, no tail, no plane.

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

When are people going to wake up!?

0931EST
"Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit."

0932
"Er, uh... Calling Cleveland centre... You're unreadable. Say again slowly."

"Don't move. Shut up."

"Come on, come."

"Shut up."

"Don't move."

"Stop."

"Sit, sit, sit down."

"Sit down."

" ... the brother."

"Stop."

0933
"No more. Sit down."

"That's it, that's it, that's it. Down, down."

"Shut up."

""

"We just, we didn't get it clear... Is that United 93 calling?"

"Jassim."

"In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate."

""

"Finish, no more. No more."

"No. No, no, no, no." "No, no, no, no."

0934
"Go ahead, lie down. Lie down. Down, down, down."

"There is someone... Huh?"

"Down, down, down. Sit down. Come on, sit down. No, no, no, no, no. No."

"Down, down, down."

"Down."

"No more."

"No more. Down."

"Please, please, please..."

"Down."

"Please, please, don't hurt me..."

"Down. No more."

"Oh God."

"Down, down, down."

"Sit down."

"Shut up."

"No more."

"This?"

"Yes." ""

"One moment, one moment."

""

0935
"No more."

"Down, down, down, down."

"No, no, no, no, no, no..."

""

"Sit down, sit down, sit down."

"Down."

"What's this?"

"Sit down. Sit down. You know, sit down."

"No, no, no."

"Down, down, down, down."

"Are you talking to me?"

"No, no, no. "

"Down in the airport."

"Down, down."

"I don't want to die."

"No, no. Down. down."

"I don't want to die. I don't want to die."

"No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down."

"No, no, please."

"No."

0937
"That's it. Go back."

"That's it. Sit down."

"Everything is fine. I finished."

0938
"Yes."

0939
"Ah, here's the captain. I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet."

"OK. That's 93 calling?"

"One moment."

"United 93. I understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead."

"And centre exec jet 956. That was the transmission."

"OK. Ah. Who called Cleveland?"

"Executive jet 956, did you understand that transmission?"

"Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board."

"That was all that you got out of it also?"

0940
"Affirmative."

"Roger."

"United 93. Go ahead."

"United 93. Go ahead."

"Ahh."

"This green knob?"

"Yes, that's the one."

0941
"United 93, do you hear the Cleveland centre?"

"One moment. One moment."

""

"Oh man."

0944
"This does not work now."

0945
"Turn it off."

"...seven thousand..."

"How about we let them in? We let the guys in now."

"OK."

"Should we let the guys in?"

"Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back."

"In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other god but Allah."

0947
""

"Allah knows."

0948
""

"Set course."

0949
""

0951
""

""

0952
""

""

0953
"The best thing - the guys will go in, lift up the ... and they put the axe into it. So, everyone will be scared."

"Yes. "

"The axe. "

""

"No, not the"

"Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window."

""

0954
"Open."

""

"You are... One..."

0956
""

0957
"Is there something? "

"A fight?"

"Yeah? "

0958
" Let's go, guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest. "

"Ugh."

"Ugh."

"Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most Gracious."

"Ugh. Ugh."

"Stay back."

"In the cockpit."

"In the cockpit."

"They want to get in there. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold."

0959
"Hold the door."

"Stop him."

"Sit down."

"Sit down."

"Sit down."

""

"What? "

"There are some guys. All those guys."

"Let's get them."

"Sit down."

"What?"

"What."

"What?"

""

"What? "

""

""

"Trust in Allah, and in him."

"Sit down."

""

"Ahh."

"" "Ahh."

1000
"There is nothing."

"Is that it? Shall we finish it off?"

"No. Not yet."

"When they all come, we finish it off."

"There is nothing."

""

"Ahh."

"I'm injured."

""

"Ahh."

"Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious."

"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die."

"Up, down. Up, down, in the cockpit."

"The cockpit."

"Up, down. Saeed, up, down."

"Roll it."

""

"Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

1001
""

"Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?"

"Yes, put it in it, and pull it down."

""

"Saeed."

"...engine..."

""

"Cut off the oxygen."

"Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen."

""

""

"Up, down. Up, down."

"What?"

"Up, down."

"Ahh."

"Ahh."

""

"Ahh."

"Shut them off."

1002
"Shut them off."

"Go."

"Go."

"Move."

"Move."

"Turn it up."

"Down, down."

"Pull it down. Pull it down."

"Down. Push, push, push, push, push."

"Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

""

1003
"Allah is the greatest."

"Allah is the greatest."

"Allah is the greatest."

"Allah is the greatest."

"Allah is the greatest."

"No."

"Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

"Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

Bueller?

Or maybe here, a 1/4 mile away:



Or maybe it didn't really go very far at all -- hard to say what under that soft dirt:


Meybe it was recovered, but it's a little hard to recognize:



Anyway, where have you looked?

break up in a ton of pieces after hitting grass and soft soil? How did it go under the ground when its imprint suggests it didn't penetrate the ground?

should have just stuck in the ground like a lawn dart or perhaps even bounced along the ground. :sarcasm:

The plane was broken into small pieces. Some in the ground, some scatter about the field.

The tail is broken into small pieces like the rest of the plane. Is there any basis for the tail remaining intact?

And where are these "small pieces" of the tail?

Why is no "small pieces" of any part of the plane on the field/grass?

Why didn't any of the field get singed from the alleged jet fuel fire?

That's why her smoke cloud pic is so big, it took her that long to get the tail into the barn.

:sarcasm:

You think flight 93 made that 1/2 mile across plume in her photo in which she "dropped" her camera after that only perfect photo?

Impacting the earth at a high rate of speed will do that to a plane.

"small pieces" are.

and say a plane crashed there?

How did the tail break into small pieces when it didn't even penetrate the "soft soil"?

You would agreed that the speed of the tail would have slowed before it hit, right?

just spread some scrap plane parts around. Everyone will be fooled, except you of course.

How did the tail break into small pieces when it didn't even penetrate the "soft soil"?

You have no idea if or how far it did, or did not, penetrate any soil. Admit it.

You would agreed that the speed of the tail would have slowed before it hit, right?

Right, of course it would slow down. The question is did it slow down from 600 MPH to 580 MPH or did it decrease speed at some other rate. You don't know the answer and neither do I. We do know the area was covered with small plane parts and plane parts were buried.

Since the tail imprint looks like an exact cutout of the vertical tail, it either cut right through it and burrowed in the ground, or barely hit the ground and only left faint impression in the grass.

Am I wrong?

unless you were there you have no knowledge of what those imprints may or may not mean.

and of a vertical tail?

That Flight 93 didn't exist? Or are you going to dodge the question by stating that you're "just asking questions."

People died on that plane. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for denying how they died.

No slippy, I'm not saying it "didn't exist". I'm saying it didn't crash in Shanksville and cause that phoney crater.

And no, I don't know that happened to Flight 93 then.

I would sincerely like to hear the analysis you conducted personally at the alleged crash site, and the evidence you found there that gave you the belief that Flight 93 didn't crash there.

I would also like to hear about how the crash site compares to other forensic investigations you conducted at aeroplane crash sites.

and I really have to question your competence for asking for my analysis when this thread was started by me presenting my . . . my analysis.

I would sincerely like to hear the analysis you conducted personally at the alleged crash site, and the evidence you found there that gave you the belief that Flight 93 didn't crash there.

I would also like to hear about how the crash site compares to other forensic investigations you conducted at aeroplane crash sites.

Since obviously you seem to dispute what forensic investigators concluded at the site, I presume you have conducted detailed forensic investigations of your own as rigorous and expertly, and dare I presume even more so?

they had long since cleaned up the site.

:eyes:

That mark is NOT made by the tail.

The aircraft was rotated 90 degrees on it's side when it hit wing tip first. That's supported by the animation created from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder, and could explain why one engine was found several hunderd meters from the crash site.

and turned the nose direct into the ground. Resulting high speed impact and fireball disintergrated the fuel filled wings along with entire aircraft.

Most air crashes are at LOW speed as they are during takeoff or landing. Hence the tail's survival.

and where exactly was that explosion that disintegrated the wings?

It's not a model airplane you know. You want nice large peices to examine. Aircraft are designed light as possible to fly thru air, not plow fields. Aluminum filled with JP8 doesnt stand up to well to encounters with the ground at near max speed.

The hex-plosion was right were the aircraft hit. You you purposely being obtuse?

I want to know where the evidence that the wings exploded is or is it because there are no wings visible, they "must have exploded"?

some are pretty graphic. Scroll down.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc

is that all I need to do to fake a plane crash?

... even if you saw the tail, you wouldn't believe it. Why, then, did you even start this thread, and why are you asking people to explain where the tail is?

The claim is NO evidence. You present some evidence and, the claim changes to FAKED evidence.

With that line of reasoning you can 'prove' ANY event did not happen. This is so typical.

PROVE it.

I'll I have to do is dig a crater and spread some plane scraps around and then I'll have a "legitimate" plane crash.

I just want to know what happened to the tail after is supposedly left a faint tail mark in the grass.

your description doesn't say

the laws of physics yet? No? Ok, just checking.

and expecting a different result each time would be a sign of insanity.

No thanks. I'm pretty sane.

Don't worry, neither can I.

Why is this one piece of "evidence" important?

Come on people, a 757's vertical tail is HUGE. It supposedly left a soft impression in the grass.

WHAT HAPPENED TO IT AFTERWORDS???

yet from 4 plane crashes on 9/11, we've not seen one tail section or even piece of a tail.

Even weirder, the holes in the WTC didn't have room for the tail, but the videos don't show the tail breaking off.