Soft Earth and Flight 93-- version 2

Officially, the rear two-thirds of UA93 were buried in the ground under this crater:


(this photo was govt evidence at the Moussaoui trial)

We're talking about a rather large airplane here -- 155 feet long, 124 foot wingspan, 30 foot high tail, over 100 tons, officially going almost 600 mph.

You can see how big the crater is in comparison to the person standing next to the crater.

So here's the conundrum: if the ground was SOFT enough to allow 2/3 of the plane (100 feet length of plane and 100 feet of wings) to enter completely and get buried in soil-- shouldn't the ground have been gouged out MUCH MORE extensively than this shallow crater that we see here?

Think of the energy being exerted in the official story, where a huge jet going 600 mph slams into the ground and explodes and burrows into the ground.

How does this crash produce only this crater?

In my view, this basically proves that no Boeing 757 crashed in this crater.

Here are some other views of the 93 crater:








Here's pictures of a 757:









Remember, officially, the black boxes were found 15 and 25 feet underground!!!

Also note: this massive crash and explosion didn't burn the grass right next to the crater.


Also also note: I redid this post as the image in the original post was not showing up, the old thread is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=132868&mesg_id=132868)

Finally, still no one has given a coherent explanation to explain the flight 93 crash site.

that crater from looking at the pic. Only evidence I see is something skipped off of it.

I mean, has anyone seen a pic showing the excavaters hauling out a big chuck of fuselage from the crater? All I've seen the haul out is dirt and one planted engine scrap.

Officially, the rear two-thirds of UA93 were buried in the ground under this crater:......allowing 2/3 of the plane (100 feet length of plane and 100 feet of wings) to enter completely and get buried in soil--

Thanks in advance.

there are more sources here:
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1161

... is "monocoque."

This is not a description of the Flight 93 crash site. It's a description of the crater made when Northwest Flight 110 crashed near Cannelton, Indiana, in 1960. It crashed into "soft" ground at about a 90-degree angle, traveling at 600mph. Note (again) that the crash site at Shanksville was not just "soft"; it was a former stripmine, where all the dirt had been removed at one time and then just dumped back in, so it was almost certainly softer and soft to a greater depth than the 110 crash site. The report above says that the "crumpled upper end" of the rudder was protruding from the ground, but the fact that Shanksville was a stripmine could easily explain that small difference. There were no intact bodies recovered from 110 and no "large" pieces of the plane; the plane and the people simply disintegrated from the impact, and most of it was ended up under the dirt in that crater.

see here:
http://www.avsaf.org/reports/US/1960.03.17_NorthwestAirlines_LockheedElectra.pdf

In some ways, the two crashes are similar, BUT:

1) the plane was smaller than a Boeing 757
2) the wings broke off in flight, so the plane was even smaller when it crashed
3) most notably, the tail section was sticking out of the ground:

"Portions of the vertical tail were imbedded in the west rim of the crater with the crumpled upper end of the rudder protruding from the ground.

Pieces of horizontal tail structure were imbedded in the north rim of the crater."

---------------
NOW--- is there a reason you don't like to leave citations for your quotes?
Vincent Vega Lives did the same thing and it led to a problem.

> 1) the plane was smaller than a Boeing 757

... which is consistent with the smaller crater it produced.

> 2) the wings broke off in flight, so the plane was even smaller when it crashed

... and made a smaller crater.

> 3) most notably, the tail section was sticking out of the ground:

It says "... the crumpled end of the rudder" was protruding from the ground and "portions of the vertical tail were embedded in" the crater; it does not say "the tail section was sticking out of the ground"). And as I stated but you continue to ignore, there is no logical reason to think that the ground there was as soft (or soft as deeply down) as the soil would be in a reclaimed stripmine. How can you ever hope to understand what happened when you insist on ignoring a key fact about the ground there?

You are grasping at very thin straws. The crashes were very similar and so were the results: most of the plane ended up under the dirt in a small crater, something that you claim is totally impossible.

from just the fuselage of a smaller plane.

The 710 crater was 30 feet by 40 feet by 12 feet deep-- just from the fuselage.

Plus there were identifiable pieces of tail sticking out of the crater.

The 93 central crater was 15 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet deep at most, and there was no identifiable tail wreckage in the crater.

Plus we have the ludicrous story for flight 93 that the front 1/3 of the plane shattered first on the ground, before the rear 2/3 went completely into the ground. I say THAT is impossible.

I don't claim that it is impossible for the plane to burrow underground-- just that it should have made a much bigger crater if it did in fact do so.

1) the unburnt grass right next to the crater

2) why officially, one engine broke off and went flying for hundreds of feet and one engine went into the ground

3) the lack of blood at the scene

We don't have much description of what the bodies from flight 710 were like, but this old Time piece:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826119,00.html?promoid=googlep

says they found a "bloodstained blouse" in the crater.

These are just a few of the 93 crash anomalies.

So, those guys in the photo are, what, maybe 18 or 20 inches tall, right?

I estimate from your top photo in the OP that the crater is at least 45 feet wide, and that's clearly not the longest dimension.

> Plus we have the ludicrous story for flight 93 that...

Sorry, but you've just forfeited all rights to characterize anyone else's "story" as "ludicrous." On your own blog, you (mis)estimated the distance just between the engine craters as 30 feet, so you know damn well that the crater was bigger than 15 by 20. So why did you decide to lie in your post?

> ... the front 1/3 of the plane shattered first on the ground, before the rear 2/3 went completely into the ground. I say THAT is impossible.

You say that, based on what -- you're tremendous grasp of physics and vast knowledge of plane crashes? Anyway, I have no idea if that's actually what investigators found or that's just something someone said off the top of their head. I don't seem to find that anywhere in NTSB reports, so I don't consider it relevant. So, let's stick to the size of the crater.

So let's assume a very conservative round crater 45 feet in diameter and do the math. The area for a 45-foot round crater would be 1809 square feet, so the main part of 93's crater, not counting the long trenches made by the wings, would be something greater than that. Flight 710's 30 by 40 elliptical crater would be 942 square feet. So 93's main crater is almost twice as large as 710's in area (at least!). From your top photo again, I estimate the depth as at least 12 feet, about the same depth 710's crater, so 93's crater was also about twice the volume of 710's.

Now, the kinetic energy. A Lockheed Electra weighed 27,894 kg empty with a maximum takeoff weight of 52,664 kg. Let's take a number of about half-way between, 40,000 kg. It was traveling about 600 mph when it hit the ground, which would be about 268 m/s. The kinetic energy (1/2 mv²), was therefore about 1436 MJ.

A 757-200 weighs about 57,840 kg empty, with a maximum takeoff weight of 99,790 kg, so let's again assume about half capacity, 79,000 kg. It was moving about 580 mph or 259 m/s, for a kinetic energy of about 2649 MJ.

So, Flight 93 had very roughly twice as much kinetic energy as Flight 710, and even assuming very conservative estimate for the size of the Shanksville crater, it produced a crater about twice as large. I don't see any mystery there.

> I don't claim that it is impossible for the plane to burrow underground-- just that it should have made a much bigger crater if it did in fact do so.

Consider yourself debunked (and also exposed as, uh, somewhat less than honest for trying to pass off that 15 by 20 size when I'm sure you knew better).

measure it yourself.

I also gave a source for the 2/3rds rear going in the ground.

Do you believe that 2/3rd went in or not?

First you seem to say it is possible, then you say my source is wrong?

When I say the crater is 15 x 20 feet, I am assuming the people in the pic are 6 feet, not ridiculously small.

In contrast, the only way the crater could be 45 feet wide is if the people were 18-20 inches tall.

THAT is basic logic.

> In contrast, the only way the crater could be 45 feet wide is if the people were 18-20 inches tall.

THAT is basic logic.

:rofl: Um, no THAT is basic... er, well, we're supposed to be nicey-nice on here, so I'll just say you may want to rethink that "basic logic" a bit -- you've got it exactly backwards.

I estimated roughly 7.5 "man-heights" across the crater in your top photo. Now, it's true I had to guess at the total height of the man if he was standing up, and we can't see the right edge of the crater so I'm guessing at that too, but I believe that's a reasonable estimate, and I do believe that 7.5 * 6 feet = 45 feet. Please explain to me the "basic logic" of either 7.5 * 6 feet = 15 feet (since that's the shorter direction) -- or explain how 7.5 * 20 inches = 45 feet, for that matter :eyes: -- or show me why you claim it's only about 2.5 "man-heights" across that crater:



Your photo in this post is cropped on the left, but let's take a look at a wider view from that angle -- the wider direction -- and estimate how many "man-heights" we get in that direction:



So, you're saying that your super-accurate estimation puts that crater at maybe 3.33 "man-heights" across, is that what you're saying?

--are you doing that on purpose or is that another mistake?

Remember, I was talking about the central crater (hole). Your measurement doesn't even stay in the same plane. Also, for whatever reason, your line for the man is slightly longer than the horizontal lines. It IS in fact illogical for you to claim an accurate measurement for the central hole. I'm not stupid and I suspect you are not either. Let's stop playing games here.

You will admit you were wrong about the 18-20 inch man-height thing then?

> Remember, I was talking about the central crater (hole). Your measurement doesn't even stay in the same plane.

I have no idea what you mean by "same plane." In that first photo, I'm measuring the diameter of the crater by going straight across. For this measurement, I'm assuming a round crater (which it isn't, but assuming it is gives a minimum size since the crater is much larger in the other dimension), and the diameter of a round hole is the same diameter in any direction. I've staggered the lines so each can be seen and counted.

> Also, for whatever reason, your line for the man is slightly longer than the horizontal lines.

I just copied the vertical line by the man with the "magic wand" copying tool in PaintShopPro, rotated it to be horizontal, and pasted it several times. The original line was drawn with anti-aliasing turned on and it looks like the copy tool didn't pick up a few lighter, fuzzy pixels on the end because the sensitivity was set a little low. But since that original line was just an estimate anyway and the fuzzy pixels are from anti-aliasing, a couple pixels aren't going to make much difference, but I'll do it again without anti-aliasing if that will make you happy -- I've replaced it on the server, if you reload the picture now. Your problem is to show me how that crater is only between 2.5 and 3.33 "man-heights" (15 to 20 feet), and a couple pixels ain't gonna do that. Show me what you're doing, since whatever you're doing to get 15 by 20 is way wrong.

> It IS in fact illogical for you to claim an accurate measurement for the central hole.

I claimed -- and still do -- that it was a "reasonable estimate," which is all that's possible from that photo.

> I'm not stupid and I suspect you are not either.

I'm giving you a fair chance to prove you're not stupid by coming up with a realistic estimate for the size of that crater. You're still saying that my estimate is 2 or 3 times too large, and frankly that's an absurd contention; my estimate is certainly within a few feet. I would expect anyone of average intelligence to come up with a more accurate estimate than your 15x20, just by looking at the photos.

And honestly, Spooky, you do make a lot of claims based on faulty reasoning. For example, "the only way the crater could be 45 feet wide is if the people were 18-20 inches tall." Then you say:

> You will admit you were wrong about the 18-20 inch man-height thing then?

Admit I was wrong? Sorry, but there was a reason I suggested that you rethink that piece of "basic logic," and it wasn't because I was wrong. It appears you either didn't take my advice or the whole concept eludes you. Your "basic logic" is exactly ass-backward. Which is longer: 7.5 times 6 feet, or 7.5 time 20 inches? Which one is 45 feet? What you said amounted to claiming that I was using some N times 20 inches to get 45 feet, and that you were using N times 6 feet but somehow coming up with a smaller crater. Does that really make sense to you? You were just plain wrong, and I really thought you would be smart enough to drop that. Apparently I was wrong.

1) you are not measuring the central crater-- you are measuring from one of the side craters across to the central crater, in effect at a diagonal
2) you go significantly beyond the central crater on the right side (at least one-man's length)-- on to the undisturbed ground
3) your lines are in a different plane then the man-- they are more in the foreground and thus actually should be bigger than the man as they are closer to the camera
4) your man line is too short, making him too small and thus making 6 feet smaller than it should be-- thus making it more man-lengths across than it should be.

About the 18-20 inch thing, I misinterpreted what you meant. Sorry.

In the picture below, the man is looking into the central crater. The shadows to his left and right in the crater define the central crater.

AT BEST, that central crater is 20 feet wide if we assume the men are 6 feet tall. But more realistically, it is about 12-15 feet side-to-side for the central crater. Moving out into the side craters, then we can get up to 25-30 feet from side crater to side crater (the side craters presumably were made by the engines).

> 1) you are not measuring the central crater-- you are measuring from one of the side craters across to the central crater, in effect at a diagonal

You can't tell from that photo whether or not it's directly across the smallest dimension of the crater, but it's definitely not across the maximum dimension, and any diagonal is going to be smaller than the maximum dimension of the crater. It's completely absurd to say that the crater is 15 x 20, but a diagonal might be 45 feet. What you have just made clear to me is that you want to call the "main crater" just the roundish part in the center made by the fuselage, excluding the ones made by the engines. That won't tell you anything useful, but you're still wrong: from another photo (below), I'd estimate that part of the crater to be about 35 feed in diameter.

> 2) you go significantly beyond the central crater on the right side (at least one-man's length)-- on to the undisturbed ground

Total baloney. The edge of the crater is somewhere beyond the right edge of the photo.

> 3) your lines are in a different plane then the man-- they are more in the foreground and thus actually should be bigger than the man as they are closer to the camera

I adjusted for that by making the line somewhat longer than what I would take the height of the man. This was my best estimate and again you're arguing over a couple of pixels, as if that would make the width 15 feet instead of about 45 feet.

> 4) your man line is too short, making him too small and thus making 6 feet smaller than it should be-- thus making it more man-lengths across than it should be.

No, I don't think so. As I said, I made it a little longer than what I think would be the full height of the man, but again, no precision measurements are possible from that photo. But no great precision is required to see how far off you are with your 15 x 20 claim.

> AT BEST, that central crater is 20 feet wide if we assume the men are 6 feet tall. But more realistically, it is about 12-15 feet side-to-side for the central crater.

That is simply absurd, as anyone should be able to tell even from that same photo, but it's quite clear by looking at other views that the crater is much larger than that. This is not a 15 x 20 foot crater:



This is not a 15 x 20 foot crater:



This is not a 15 x 20 foot crater:



Look at this aerial view, where the end-to-end length of the crater made by the wings was 115 feet. This is the one I used to estimate that just the central round part is about 35 feet across. Just that part alone would be about the size of the Flight 710 crater. Even if we call just that the "main part" of the crater is certainly not 15 x 20:



In short, the 93 crater is definitely larger than the 710 crater, as would be expected by the greater mass. You refuse to acknowledge any rational estimate of the size simply because you want to continue claiming that the "small" size of the crater is an "anomaly." No surprise there, but please stop claiming to be any kind of "truth seeker' when you make it that obvious what you're really seeking.

there is the central crater, the two side craters where "engine" appears to have impacted, and then there are the wing marks. The long skinny marks out to the side are the "wing" marks. There is also a faint "tail" impression sticking out one side of the central crater.

I am talking about the central crater-- the round middle crater in that last picture. As far as I can tell, it is 15 by 20 feet. The central crater would appear to be where the fuselage went? Can we agree on that?


This is not pointless, measuring the central crater is a critical point.

... and as I already said, using that aerial photo, I estimate it to be about 35 feet in diameter. I see no rational way that anyone could possibly estimate it to be 15 x 20, and you haven't yet shown me how you came up with that. Look at those other photos, and go look at some more on the web -- particularly the ones where people and vehicles are near the crater. And as I also said, 35 feet would make just that part of the crater about as big as the Flight 710 crater. There is no "anomaly" even if we assume the soil was the same (and in fact we know the reclaimed stripmine would be soft to a greater depth than a plowed bean field).

and unfortunately, I haven't had time to finish it.

Suffice it to say, your measurements are quite a way off and I don't know why you can't see this.

If you use this picture,

and extend the person's height up properly, then extend this length across the crater WHERE THE GUY IS STANDING, the crater is 3.5 man heights. For a 6 foot man, that is 20 feet.

Your diagram is clearly wrong, I'm not sure why you can't see that.

Not to mention that going the other direction, the central crater is clearly not more than twenty feet wide, and probably less.

Even if I measure it where you suggest, I get something between 30 and 35 feet, but I really can't understand why you would want to measure just that part of the crater -- unless you just really don't know want to know how big it is.

And I believe that's about enough of this nonsense. There is no anomaly in the size of the crater.

this crater is only about 21 feet across, and the distance between the "engine" marks is FAR too small for a Boeing 757:

If these don't show up, the primary source is here:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/measuring-flight-93-crater-its-still.html

You're measuring arbitrary points that won't tell you anything useful (and you're using a measurement stick that's too large, but that's a lesser problem).

When you plot your estimates on the ariel photo, we have a chance to check if they make any sense:



The one dimension I have been able to find for the crater is that it was 115 feet long (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 for example, but I have seen that number and "over 100 feet" in other places). If that's correct, then your 31-foot estimate cannot be correct (and in fact if 115 feet is correct, the craters where the engines hit would be precisely what would be expected for a 757). If your 31-foot estimate is correct, then the crater cannot be 115 feet long -- it would be more like 70 feet.

So, all we need to do is determine if the total width of the crater was closer to 115 or 70 feet to settle the matter. Agreed?

the crater WAS 70 feet in width

I have done more measurements on it than any in the govt seems to have

Let's use the same method you tried to use on one of your recent blogs, only this time instead of using the widest truck tracks you can find on the photo and calling it 6 feet (even though it's wider than the tracks right next to it), and then fudging the measurement too, let's use some normal-sized tracks that are about the same distance from the camera as the crater. To be more accurate since features are small in this photo, let's actually count the pixels. Fortunately, there are a set of tracks at about the right distance which conveniently are directly away from the camera, so we can take a horizontal pixel count: 14 pixels. If that's 6 feet, then one foot is about 2.33 pixels, and 115 feet would be about 268 pixels. The crater needs to be measured at an angle, so a little calculation is necessary to say that a rectangle 247 x 103 would have a diagonal of about 268 pixels. The right end of the crater is fairly easy to locate so I'll put one arrow there, but the left end is vague. However, putting the other arrow 268 pixels away looks just about right, doesn't it:



Close enough that we can easily say that the crater is much closer to 115 feet than it is 70 feet. Now, using that same method, care to guess again on how far apart the engine craters are?

Your measurements are simply wrong, and you don't seem to be even trying to get an accurate measurement. All you're trying to do is rationalize your original "too small" claims, and you'd still be saying the crater was 15 x 20 feet if you hadn't been called on it. There is no "anomaly" here.

Immediately to the right of the crater in the following photo, there is a thin line of trees on the near side of the road and there is a "notch" in the tree-line on the opposite side of the road, and the distance between those features is about the same (or slightly less than) the width of the crater:



Those features are still visible on the current Google Earth satellite image, so it's possible to estimate the distance. (I have drawn a line 115 feet long from the large tree at the apex of the tree-line notch; note that it falls slightly short of the thin line of trees):



This estimate indicates that the crater is at least 115 feet wide.

So, are we ready now to make a more reasonable estimate of the distance between the engine craters?

I was going from one edge of the crater to the other side along the same plane of view.

I have measured that the central crater is about 20 feet across using three different photos.

it is under five man lengths-- 27 feet at most by your man length-- but I think you have made the "man-line" much too short.

By my measurements, the guy should be about 30 mm, and the crater is 100 mm across-- making it 20 feet across, exactly

and slightly more text.

> Finally, still no one has given a coherent explanation to explain the flight 93 crash site.

You must be using a non-standard definition for the word "coherent." Your argument still amounts to nothing more than "I don't understand it," which is, um... not necessarily because the explanations are incoherent.

we're even

I can't believe some people still believe a 155ft plane went down in there!

the OCTers sure love to whine.

It's not like anyone MAKES them come here and defend the official story... (wink wink).

...since you're happy to encourage bushatbooker in that monstrous little bit of flamebait.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seems like the OCTists have recruited a bunch more people to man the boards here. I wonder why?

Its because the Truth seekers are winning.
We cant have that now can we.

I have a message for you scrubs. The truth ALWAYS wins.

How many identities do you have here, Killclown? I count at least 6 since you were tombstoned under the Killclown name, but I haven't really paid much attention so your count could be considerably higher than that.

As an aside, I especially liked it when two of your simultaneous sockpuppets got tombstoned at the same time when you messed up your own fake conversation between the two of them and made it obvious that you were both of them trying to bolster Killclown's nonsense. That was hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.

Was that a fake, too?

It sure would be nice if you referenced your quotes.

Because you had a bum source.

for your half baked assertions.

Because you have no source, no facts, and no evidence.

waaambulance called for them.

do you really think that people here don't know of your previous incarnations, and do you really think anyone here buys any of your nonsense? Give it a rest already and save yourself another tombstone.

no need to be snippy

I'm sorry the govt defrauded all of us, don't blame me

But I can't help but observe that it appears that you are being deliberately obtuse. The Bush government is arguably one of the worst administrations ever to hold office in the U.S., but it's twoofers who are currently doing more than anyone, even more than the Bush government, to try to defraud people about the events of 9/11.

But about 9/11, the OCTers here appear to be the obtuse ones who are covering up a massive crime.

doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?

This has got to be the next most retarded argument going.

Half-assed internet(s) photo-analysis. :freak:

Waiting for the scale model 767. :popcorn:

It's an insult to everyone who witnessed the fucking plane seconds before it impacted (dozens of people), as well as the workers/witnesses to the aftermath of the crash. Cannot understand the fixation with this rot.

The fact is, the crash site makes no sense.

It is just wrong.

There were NOT dozens of people to the CRASH. There wasn't ONE person who saw the plane hit the ground.

... if it didn't happen?

some people probably saw a plane fly over and heard the boom and then saw the smoke

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road. Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville. "I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene," said Blair. http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html

"It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane. "Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that." http://www.pittsburgh.com/partners/wpxi/news/flightheroes.html

A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. http://newsandviews.tripod.com/news/091101tv2.html

Eric Peterson of Lambertsville looked up when he heard the plane. "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/100028703529429109.xml

And the plane didn't crash into trees.

Also, how does a plane make a sharp 90-degree downwards turn anyway?

Unless you can explain how the plane righted itself and leveled off from a steep dive a few feet above the ground, and then flew away with no one noticing that, at the exact instant that the fake explosion went off to make the fireball, then I think it's fairly accurate to say they "saw the crash." Point is: you need to explain it if you claim the crash didn't happen.

> Also, how does a plane make a sharp 90-degree downwards turn anyway?

It can't, so it's safe to say that it should not be taken as a precise description, but as a loosly-worded impression of the plane diving toward the ground.

every time

... and the DNA of the Flight 93 passengers? There is no conflict beteeen the witnesses and the physical evidence. The only conflict is between both of those and your inability/unwillingness to understand the physical evidence.

why is it half-assed?

how big do you think the crater is?

You're looking at a few photos and the web and making unjustified assumptions about both what they actually show and what they "should" show according to your imaginary physics.

Over 1100 people worked on cleaning up that crash site, and every single one of them has a far better understanding of what the site actually looked like than you have. See if you can find even one of them who thinks that a 757 didn't crash there.

also-- how the heck do you presume WHAT THEY THOUGHT???????????

Find one, or give me a rational explanation for why not a single one of them has come forward.

you know, like whistle-blowers usually are. And this time the stakes are very high and they know it.

Otherwise, maybe they don't mind going along with the lie.

MY POINT is, you have no idea what these people think.

So, according to you, the hoax planners came up with a scheme to go to incredibly elaborate lengths to fake the Shanksville crash for absolutely no apparent or logical reason, and which depended on successfully threatening hundreds of clean-up workers to "go along with the lie." And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you pesky kids looking at a half-dozen photos on the internets.

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Why do you insist promoting on this nonsense of the official story?

... and your theory is the nonsense. The whole premise is ludicrously idiotic and the only support for it is sloppy, half-assed "research."

what gives?

it isn't hard to admit it is strange. But there a small minority, to whom EVERYTHING that happened that day is perfectly normal and explainable.

There are a few posters on this board, to whom if brains where dynamite they couldn't blow their noses. I would name them, but being tombstoned never really appealed to me.

Suffice to say, Ignored, appears in a lot of threads in between critically thinking posters.