Flight 93 Hoax

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

More Engine Trouble

This is officially one of the engines from flight 93, apparently freshly unearthed.

However, there are a few problems with this scene:

1) why did this engine go in the ground but the other one went flying away?

2) how exactly was it, that this heavy engine impacting the ground at 600 mph, only went ONE FOOT underground-- when the black boxes in the TAIL of the plane went at least 15 feet underground?

3) are they really using an excavator to dig out a hole that is in theory packed with human remains? Shouldn't they be doing this excavation a little more delicately?

4) as best as I can tell, this is the rear half of a crumpled up turbofan engine. Where is the front half?

5) most interestingly, the engine looks as though it went into the ground at close to a 90 degree angle. How can this be the case, when officially flight 93 hit the ground at a 45 degree angle?

But the story gets even more strange!

Although the engine is clearly not at a 45 degree angle (as the official account would hold), the engine is actually at about a 70 degree angle, where 90 degrees is straight vertical.

This picture nonetheless deviates drastically from the official story.

You should be able to see in the picture that there are trees in the background. The only foliage near the crash site was straight to the west. This means the picture was taken to the east of the crater looking west. (See here for a high-res version of the photo.)

This means the topmost part of the engine is leaning TOWARDS THE SOUTH.

Officially, the plane came from the north, heading south, and if the plane went into the ground at some angle (most sources say 45 degrees), the engine should be positioned with the topmost part tipping significantly to the north. In other words, the engine debris should be leaning northwards. In this picture, the engine is tilted completely the wrong direction!

It is extremely unlikely the engine was tilted the opposite way during the digging process, since removal of dirt on the northern side if anything should have made the engine tilt more in that direction, which would have supported the official story more. Further, if the engine was moved significantly prior to the picture being taken, it invalidates this official evidence.

I think the engine was moved from its original location before the picture was taken -- and most likely was planted to bolster the case for a 757 crash at this site.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Engine Trouble

Killtown takes on what exactly happened to the two flight 93 engines.

Bottom line: one may have been planted, the other one fictitious.

Here's a question-- is the engine that was supposedly dug out of the hole going the right way?

Monday, January 29, 2007

Dimensions of the Flight 93 Official Crash Crater: Proof No Boeing 757 Crashed There

Using the pictures here, I finally decided to get a solid estimate for the flight 93 official crash crater. I used the men on the ground next to the crater in the various pictures to estimate the crater size, and assumed each man was 6 feet tall.

UA93 officially was a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 (the plane UA93 was officially) has a 125 foot wingspan, and the engines are 43 feet apart (measuring from the middle of each engine looking at the front of the plane).

The problem is that the 93 crash crater shows only 30 feet-- at MOST-- between engine scars:

Considering that the a plane HAD to have come down with both engines hitting roughly the same time on the ground to produce the observed crash scar, I submit the 30 foot distance between engines as proof no Boeing 757 crashed to make this crater.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Flight 93 Crater Thread at DU

UPDATE: Newer thread here.


I've been trying for about a week to convince the resident skeptics (and likely operatives) that it is very unlikely that a Boeing 757 crashed in this crater:

Feel free to chime in at DU. I could use some help fighting the skeptics.