Flight 93 Hoax

Monday, October 24, 2005

Comparing the Flight 93 Crash with the Recent Nigerian 737 Crash

Links for the Nigerian crash here, here and here.

This story is very recent and has the most pictures.

Detail of the Nigerian crash:
Dismembered and burned body parts, fuselage fragments and engine parts were strewn over an area the size of a football field.

A wig, human intestines, clothes, foam seats and a hand were seen wedged in the sodden earth. A check for 948,000 naira ($7200) from the evangelical Deeper Life church was one of a number of personal papers found in the smoldering wreckage.

1) a medium size Boeing jet (757 for UA93, 737 for Nigeria jet) crashes at high speed in soft ground (filled in mine for UA93, swamp for Nigeria jet).
2) the plane disintegrates upon crashing, leaving a large crater (some pictures n the links).
3) passengers are all killed, bodies are mostly torn apart.
4) the crash was very violent, in both cases "small bits of fuselage, human flesh and clothing were strewn in nearby trees."
5) the debris fields are similar sizes

1) the Nigerian crash was on fire for over a day, unlike UA93
2) the Nigerian jet does NOT disappear into the ground, unlike UA93 supposedly did
3) most importantly, large easily-recognizable body parts and large plane pieces were strewn around the crash site and were easily found, unlike UA93 where no plane parts were near the crater and human remains were in very small pieces-- mostly pieces of skin.

So-- why so many similarities yet so many major differences?

Why does the flight 93 crash defy logic, unless it is faked?

Saturday, October 22, 2005

The World's Greatest Compilation of Flight 93 Articles

Here, by the world's foremost expert on flight 93: John Doe II.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Why Fake the Flight 93 Crash Site?

Because they didn't want any incriminating evidence at the crash site. The plane that witnesses around Shanksville saw flying crazily was probably a drone without passengers. If they crashed that, then they would have obvious plane debris and no dead bodies. This is particularly a problem in the rural area where the plane crashed, because local people might get to the site first and take pictures of plane parts that didn't match UA93. They would also wonder why there were no bodies around.

BUT-- if they create a crash site where it looks like the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, people aren't going to wonder too much about the lack of passengers because the plane is gone too. In the awfulness of the moment, people will simply accept the official story that the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

A Detailed Pictorial Analysis of the Flight 93 Crash

Here is the official government version of the flight 93 crash (all of the details can be found in the book "Among the Heroes" by Jere Longman):

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

Posted by Picasa

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.

Posted by Picasa

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!

A Simple Proof that the Official Story of the Flight 93 Crash is Wrong

Officially flight 93 was crashed intentionally by the hijackers into the ground. According to Jere Longman, who wrote the definitive account of flight 93 in his book "Among the Heroes", when the plane crashed going 600 mph, it burrowed head-first into the ground. Officially, most of the plane's fuselage was found buried 25-40 feet underground. Even the two black boxes were found at 15 feet and 25 feet below the ground surface. However, the plane also exploded, showering large pieces of debris for hundreds of yards and very light debris, for miles. The explosion produced a huge noise that nearby residents heard and also produced a large mushroom cloud. The crash also apprently produced a seismic vibration, though the 9/11 commission doesn't believe this evidence as the time of the signal was 10:06am and not 10:03am when the commission says flight 93 crashed.

Here is what the crater of the flight 93 crash looked like.

Here is the problem: the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders (the black boxes) are located in the tail of the plane.

If the plane went into the ground head first, and the black boxes went into the ground, this means the tail went into the ground as well.

This PROVES that flight 93 either:

1) went in the hole head-first and DID NOT explode (since the explosion would have shot out the rear of the plane, blowing off the tail)


2) didn't go into the hole and the crater is a hoax.

I submit that it is impossible that the plane's fuselage including the tail section could have burrowed deeply into the ground but at the same time exploded so violently as to shower human remains and aircraft debris all over above ground.

It Makes No Sense

I have to say that of all the odd things about 9/11, the thing that perplexes me most and makes the least amount of sense is the flight 93 crash.

See here and here for more about the crash.

It makes no fucking sense.