A Detailed Pictorial Analysis of the Flight 93 Crash
According to the official story, the remains of people that were in or near the flight 93 cockpit were found outside the crater, whereas all other passenger remains were found in the hole. BUT-- both types of remains were quite minimal-- they only found about 10% of the total possible remains from the known passengers. In other words, there should have been about 7000 pounds of body parts but they only found 700 pounds worth.
Things that don't make sense:
1) That the front of the plane broke up up while the rest of the plane went in the ground. By normal physical principles, either the nose went into the ground first followed by the fuselage or the plane didn't go into the ground period. I don't see any way around it. A good comparison would be with the planes crashing into the WTC: the nose didn't break off as the planes hit and broke through the wall-- the nose went in first. Moreover, the front of the plane smashing into bits should slow down the momentum of the plane quite a bit and thus it is not clear what drove the rest of the plane into the ground.
2) How did the front of the plane that supposedly didn't go into the ground break entirely into very small pieces? There wasn't even large sections of seats-- it's as if the front of the plane totally disintegrated. How would smashing into soft ground do this? Even an explosion doesn't rip everything into small unrecognizable pieces.
3) I can see bodies vaporizing to some degree if they were outside the crater and were subjected to the full force of the explosion and fire, but I don't understand why more intact bodies weren't recovered from the crumpled plane in the crater. What force shredded even these bodies to such an extreme degree?
4) What caused some debris from the plane to be found miles away? Some significant debris, including human remains and pieces of seats were found two miles away at Indian Lake.
Scenario A would be analogous to most plane crashes. An example is the recent crash of the Helios flight in Greece-- the plane crashed into the ground going full speed, but large sections of the plane were recovered including the tail, and passenger bodies were relatively intact.
Scenario B, where the plane goes into the ground but the tail sticks out-- that was based on an actual plane crash that happened in Indiana 45 years ago (flight 710).
1) the whole crash site was faked (the lack of any tail section near the crater is very fishy since the black boxes were found in the hole) with a planted bomb and human remains were planted later, or
2) the plane had a massive bomb on it (in the cockpit area?) that went right off before the plane crashed or the plane was shot by a powerful missile right before the plane crashed. But the timing is tricky for either detonating a bomb or being struck by a missile in order for the rest of the plane to bury itself in the ground. Possibly, the plane was blown up and they are just lying about the plane and the black boxes being in the ground in order to cover up that the plane blew into smithereens by a missile or bomb right before it crashed. But if this is the case, what created the crater?
3) The plane crash site was bombed by interceptor jets after it crashed. But if the plane crashed, why would they need to bomb it, and how could they be sure there were no witnesses? Also, wouldn't there be two seismic signals-- the crash and the bombing?
Since we had two Boeing 757 crashes on 9/11, both with suspicious holes and not enough debris (flight 77/Pentagon and flight 93), I have to think both were faked. But if this is true, it is mind-boggling to think how they must have planned and coordinated this. And if this is all fake, why didn't they do a better job? Why did they make it look so fake? Just to stoke conspiracies? To save the cost of a couple of 757's?
None of it makes a lot of sense, but the clear thing is that THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS WRONG!