Strangest "Plane Crash" Ever

***Permanent top post***

***Permanent top post***

1) lack of major plane debris around crash crater 

2) one engine found one mile away, very unlikely for it to fly that far on impact

3) strange phone calls

4) discrepancies for time of crash (10:03 vs 10:06) 

5) evidence for a 2nd flight 93

6) plane debris found up to 8 miles away from official crash site

7) incomprehensible official story for how plane exploded upon impact but also completely burrowed into the ground and shredded at the same time

8) ACARS evidence showing flight 93 continued flying after crash

9) missing human remains (supposedly all official people accounted for but only tiny amounts of each body found)

10) geometry of official crater doesn't make sense for official story of inverted Boeing 757 crash 

11) pristine bandana shown as evidence, supposedly worn by one of the hijackers, supposedly survived burning crash.

12) plane tail and wingtips should have broken off in large pieces but are completely absent from the debris field

Ultimately none of the official story makes sense and we can only speculate what really happened with the public evidence presented. 

My best guess is that there was a second flight 93 and two crash sites. One flight involved a hijacking "drill" or exercise with the hijackers and a few passengers and the other flight was the regular commercial flight with the other passengers. How the crash crater in Shanksville was formed is hard to understand but certainly doesn't fit the official story of a Boeing 757 crash. I have tried very hard to make the official crash story make sense to me but I just can't. On the other hand, it's impossible to know exactly how it would have been faked. Absent new evidence, the public will never know the true story or be able to make sense of the crash site.

What really happened with Flight 93? Is the crash site really from US flight 93, a Boeing 757? A Systematic Analysis:

 Note-- I am not considering the "shoot down" hypothesis here because I don't think it fits in any way with the official crash crater. The shoot down idea doesn't help explain the crater, in my opinion, it makes it somewhat less likely, as a crippled plane would have less ability to dive at high speed into the ground and disappearing. Thus, here I am focusing on what made the crater. 

Note if the official crash crater site were faked, it is possible a "real" flight was shot down as part of the flight 93 plan, but this is a separate aspect of this flight and is not going to be considered here.

So, I am using a point scale to weigh the evidence, pros and cons for the crash site being different from the official story. 

Firmness of evidence on scale of 1-5, where 5 is most solid 

Reasons to think there was a conspiracy and the crash site is fake or different from the official story. 

 

1)        Operation Northwoods from the 1960s proposed a similar scenario of fake plane crash, false flag operation to incite a war-- 5

2)        Bush/Cheney administration famously secretive and dishonest, lied American into Iraq war-- 5

3)        Overall 9/11 scenario is highly suspect, some degree of coverup is clear—5

4)        Hijacking drills run by US military prior to and on the day of 9/11, made a hoax easier—4

5)        Official crash crater has major issues for being a legitimate 757 crash – 4

6)        weirdness some of with the phone calls, particularly Ed Felt, Todd Beamer—3

7)        official story makes for very good fighting back propaganda on a very terrible day—4

8)        Evidence for twin flight 93’s; ACARS data shows flight continuing; Cleveland airport flight 1989 mystery-- 3

 

 

Plausibility of reasons to believe the official story on scale of 1-5, where 5 is most plausible

 

Reasons to believe the official story

1)        hard to believe such a massive lie from the govt--3

2)        massive coverup would be hard to maintain-- 4

3)        flight 93 families would have to be badly fooled or in on it-- 4

4)        hard to imagine who would carry out this hoax—4

5)        very hard to imagine they could kill everyone elsewhere and plant human remains for everyone --3

 

 

Weighing the pros and cons of a hoax—sums of numerical weighting:

 

Pro-hoax= 33

No hoax= 18

 

Pretty clear the pro-hoax arguments win.

 

Various scenarios that could explain the evidence (and are not the official story):

 

1A) official crash site is total fake mock up of crash site with planted plane parts, some planted human remains, passengers and crew are totally faked personas, many actors involved in phone calls and families; human IDs at crash site are fudged-– hardest to believe, harder to run; explains evidence except a duplicate flight 93

 

1B) official crash site is total fake mock up of crash site with planted plane parts, some planted human remains, real passengers and crew killed elsewhere or taken away to live under new identity, human IDs at crash site are fudged-– plausible but harder to believe, harder to run; explains evidence except a duplicate flight 93

 

1C) official crash site is total fake mock up of crash site with planted plane parts, real passengers and crew killed elsewhere, planted human remains are from actual passengers and crew -– plausible but harder to believe, harder to carry out; explains evidence except a duplicate flight 93

 

 

2) official crash site is actual plane crash, but not a 757 or flight 93; it was a smaller plane or drone, real passengers and crew killed elsewhere, planted human remains – plausible but harder to believe, harder to run; explains evidence except a duplicate flight 93

 

3) official crash site is actual plane crash, but not a 757 or flight 93, it was a smaller plane carrying some official passengers on hijacking drill with real hijackers; other official passengers on actual flight 93 crashed elsewhere and crash covered up, some evidence planted in Shanksville—plausible, explains all evidence

 

4) official crash site is actual plane crash, but not a 757 or flight 93, it was a smaller plane with some official passengers on hijacking drill with real hijackers, other official passengers on actual flight 93 landed elsewhere and passengers and crew killed, body pieces taken and planted at official crash site —less plausible due to having to kill Americans in cold blood, otherwise explains evidence

 

 

Scenario	Crash site	2 planes involved with Hijacking drill	Passengers/crew fate	Extra plane crash
1A	No plane, total fake	No	Fake personas; all body IDs fudged	No
1B	No plane, total fake	No	Real people, killed elsewhere or moved elsewhere, body IDs fudged	No
1C	No plane, total fake	No	Real people, killed elsewhere, parts planted	No
2	Smaller plane, not 757	Maybe	All official passengers and crew killed in the crash	No
3	Smaller plane, not 757	Yes	Some official passengers are on the plane, rest killed in 2nd crash; these body parts planted	Yes
4	Smaller plane, not 757	Yes	Some official passengers are on the plane, rest killed in cold blood; these body parts planted	Yes

 

 

I tend to favor scenario 4 overall.

 

Sources:

http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110427045205/http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110428054114/http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/shanksville-crater-oddity.html

 

https://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2023/08/revisiting-weird-ed-felt-phone-call-on.html

 

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/04/husband-of-flight-93-attendant-cell.html

 

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

 

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/02/many-misquotes-of-wallace-miller.html

 

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cleveland-airport-mystery.html

 

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/united-airlines-tracked-different.html

 

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-was-male-in-flight-93s-co-pilot.html

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html#shanksville

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html

The Flight 93 Crater Suggests The Plane Was Tilted As It Went In But This Doesn't Make Any More Sense Than Anything Else About The Flight 93 Crash Crater

 Pic 1

 

Pic 2

This is hard to explain, but I think the pictures above show the idea that, assuming a plane crashed there, the plane didn't strike such that both engines hit at the same time or levelly, but rather the plane was tilted to one side, so one engine hit first, maybe the western side first (to the right in the top pic and to the left in the lower pic). This is most clearly hinted at by the off-kilter tail print, such that it's not at a 90 degree angle to the wings but off at an angle (see Pic 2). But you can also see that the black smears where the "engines" hit, trail a bit off to the western side, not straight forward out of the crater. And of course the huge explosion into the forest is at a skewed angle from the wing marks, not straight forward out of the crater.

The official flight path however is 90 degree perpendicular angle to the wing imprints, so this doesn't really add up.

It's hard to show in a diagram-- but if the plane is tilted to one side as it hits, there's simply NO WAY it can make the impact imprint shown if there is a 90 degree perpendicular angle of the wings to the flight path. 

And in my mind, if the plane is really going 563 mph as it hits, it impacts in a fraction of a second. There's no way there's time for it to tilt once it impacts, not to mention the incredible momentum of the high speed object is just going to drive every part of the plane straight on the path it was going on once it impacts.

This yet one more oddity to the crash crater and it shows that either the official flight path is quite off or the whole thing was faked...

A Visit to the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville

I've long thought the official flight 93 crash scene was very very weird and likely a hoax. 

I finally got some time to go to the official US Flight 93 memorial and I was very curious if there was any new information about the crash there. In particular I was curious if they had any new major pieces of debris and any better modeling/re-creation of the crash than what I'd seen before.

 

First off, the overall area is very hilly and very pretty. 

The park is very nicely done, modern designs, with a main visitors center then a walkway out to a view of the crash site and a memorial wall with the names of the passengers and crew. The memorial wall is is line with the supposed flight path. They have a boulder marking the crash crater, you can see it from about 100 yards away. 

The area of burnt out trees from the crash not at all clear in 2024 at site. Hemlock trees there seem symbolic.

The crash site is supposed to be in an old coal mine, strip-mine that was later filled in with "soft dirt". Seems rather fortuitous that the plane crashed there and not on a hillside which is all over this area. I would be curious to know the details on who filled in the strip mine -- when and why. It would be a massive task to put that much dirt in and then not farm the land? Seems odd.

Anyway, the soft dirt is the explanation for how the plane wreck disappeared.

I heard the park ranger give a long talk on story of flight 93 and then she described the crash. Basically she gave the official story (of course), then to explain how the plane disappeared, described it as how if you threw a marble hard into soft sand, as at the beach, and the marble will disappear into the sand leaving a crater. Never mind that a solid marble is totally different from a fragile plane structure.

Said the plane increased to 563 mph before it crashed, upside down, at a 40 degree angle.

Said there was bedrock that stopped the plane 30 feet under ground and that's where it accordioned into the ground and disappeared. Supposedly this also broke up the plane and shattered it into millions of tiny pieces.

Says 5,000 gallons of plane fuel got "launched into the tree line", creating a fireball and burning the trees. No explanation for why the fuel went in that specific direction only.

The whole scenario is very dubious at best.

There is STILL, 23 years later, no accurate video modeling or re-creation of the crash that I've seen.

The visitors center has some plane debris evidence of the crash. There's a lot lot of little pieces like below, but of course these could be anything:

 

There are only a couple of larger pieces of debris that I hadn't seen before.

One is from a video they show of the FBI going over the crash site, this is the biggest piece they ever found:

Not clear why it is so clean-- completely stripped of any other parts, much like some of the other debris that's been shown previously.

There were some flight 93 specific debris, like tickets and personal effects.

The one bit of plane debris seemingly matched to flight 93 was this, but it's pretty sketchy:

Overall, I have to say, I still don't buy the official story, though I have no idea how they hoaxed it. it feels hoaxed.

I certainly wasn't moved by the memorial. I didn't get any aura of a great tragedy there. And the crash crater makes no damn sense.

I've gone over many different scenarios here and at the other site:

the official story, a hijacking drill with actors, two planes, crash at another location and this fake site, totally fake site, partial fake site-- none of these theories seem truly plausible.

One good thing in researching this post, I found Killtown's old site on flight 93 can be accessed via webarchive, although the blog has been deleted. 

This particular post was pretty good on the burnt trees aspect of the story.

Additional thoughts added 8/4:

1) what happened to the LANDING GEAR STRUTS? Those are big, heavy, very strong parts of the plane we never heard a peep about

2) the large vertical tail fin clearly broke off from the mark on the ground, yet there's only some teeny tiny fragment shown (above). Hard to believe large pieces weren't found if there was a plane crash there.

3) just a reminder that the crash crater is too small for a Boeing 757 and the wing marks don't line up properly. One plausible possibility is some smaller plane crashed at Shanksville that may have also been carrying the same passengers and crew (only 44 people, very low number for a 757), whereas the real flight 93 crashed elsewhere or landed elsewhere and a few 757 parts were strewn around the Shanksville site.

4) the forest site that had many trees burned and/or knocked down still doesn't make sense unless huge piece of the exploding wings flew there, but even then, not clear why they would go only in that direction.

Additional thoughts added 8/6:

1) interesting there is still a HUGE junkyard just a few miles down the road from the crash scene. I know this was still there on 9/11, as it was mentioned back then. It would be a perfect place to get a bunch of scrap metal to blow up in a hole.

2) as far as the exploding fuel going forward to produce the pattern shown in this pic:

One could imagine the wings hitting the ground and breaking up immediately and the fuel inside having some forward momentum-- at least it's not completely implausible.

 

 

Conclusive Proof That UA93 Didn't Crash in Shanksville, PA

Pilots for Truth finds an ACARS smoking gun:

Furthermore, according to the NTSB animation reconstruction, the aircraft allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03am(4). How can the aircraft possibly receive a message activating an audible signal in the airplane at 1410 (10:10am Eastern)? It can't if it crashed in Shanksville, it can if were in the vicinity of CMI. Finally, there is no possible way that an aircraft can receive a message from a remote ground station which is 500+ miles away. The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet(5).

We now have several levels of corroboration demonstrating the aircraft were still airborne after their alleged crashes -

- From our first article, the logs themselves showing time sent and received based on statements made by Ed Ballinger,
- Ground station routing based on flight tracking protocols,
- Expert statements,
- And now, messages that were received well out of range from Shanksville, PA after the time of the alleged crash.

It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.

THIS IS SOLID *PROOF* FOR THE OFFICIAL UA93 STORY BEING FALSE.

The Cartwheel Explanation for the Flight 93 Crash

Sounds pretty bogus-- and pretty much nonsensical:


Somehow I don't think a plane going over 500 mph, hitting wing first, is suddenly going to flop over and produce this crater:

Not to mention that Miller's explanation doesn't account for the perfect upside-down imprint.

Meanwhile, more nonsense-- the official explanation at the crash site has 80% of the plane going 15-30 feet under the ground.

FBI Claims 95% of Shredded and Buried UA93 Recovered Less Than Two Weeks After 9/11

CNN:

September 24, 2001 Posted: 3:14 PM EDT (1914 GMT)

SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds.

This is really, really hard to believe, given the official story that much of the plane was buried deep underground and small pieces of the plane were found for acres around the official crash site. In fact, it sounds like total baloney. Keep in mind, that they are not only saying that they recovered 95% of the bris in less than two weeks, but that they managed to reconstruct the plane with the debris enough to know that they got 95%!!!

I call bullshit.


Via KT.

Where'd the Fuselage Go?

Let's look at this photo again of the Shanksville crater:


Here's the best possible match of a Boeing 757 with the Shanksvile crater, given the official trajectory of inverted impact, with the plane traveling in the basic direction of the top of the photo:


Notice a wee problem?

Even if we assume the whole plane both blew up into tiny pieces or burrowed into the ground (as the official story holds), the fuselage would have had to have make some sort of crater in the ground where it hit. But there is nothing there where the fuselage should have hit.

This crater is nonsensical.

This is a nice companion diagram to my earlier proof regarding the Shanksville crater.

Also, note-- the measurements given in the diagram in the 2nd pic are rough and mainly for the purposes of trying to fit the plane in the crater. They probably do not represent the exact size of the crater. I have older posts for  measurements of the crater, and this one too. Precise measurements of the crater size are difficult though officially they've said 30 feet wide for the central crater. More problematic than the width of the crater is the overall shape and incredible lack of plane parts.

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

As I have discussed previously (for instance, here and here and here and here), there are many reasons to think the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Here I offer rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Here is an aerial view of the crater, from the southwest, looking northeast. The plane officially came from the north, and thus would have come from the top of the picture. Notice the wing scars are towards the top, northern side of the crater-- this is important. Also, notice the apparent tail imprint made on the north side of the crater. This mark was described as a tail imprint in the book "Among the Heroes", written about flight 93.


Now, the issue is, what attitude was the plane before impact to make this crater, officially?

According the the official NTSB report, the plane impacted the ground in an inverted position, at a 40 degree angle nose down. The upside-down or inverted attitude of the plane is also noted by wikipedia and by "Among the Heroes" (Jere Longman, Harper-Collins 2002, p215).

Thus, the government is telling a story where the plane was inverted before it impacted-- that the plane was upside-down or belly up as it hit the earth.

The tail-mark at the north part of the crater in the aerial picture above supports the upside-down story as well. A tail mark made by a plane going southwards can ONLY be produced at the north side of the crater if the plane was going upside-down when it impacts.

So what does it look like when the plane is going upside-down when it impacts? How would the plane FIT in the crater?

I'm going to use this picture, where the camera is looking down one of the wing scars, to the west. North is to the right and south is to the left. Thus, the plane would come from the right.


Here is a diagram, with a plane superimposed onto the crater, using the picture above. (The tail end of the plane is cut off in this diagram because of size.)
(click to enlarge image)



Immediately, you should see there is a problem.

Even if the fuselage impacts at the very north part of the crater, THERE IS NO WAY THE WINGS CAN IMPACT THE GROUND TO PRODUCE THE WING SCARS.

The wings simply do not line up in the right place.

If you move the fuselage so that it impacts the ground further to the left (further southwards), the wing alignment problem is even worse.

Further, it is impossible for the plane to flip backwards as it impacts, to have the wings produce the side scars, particularly when the plane (officially) is going 563 mph.

If anything, the wings are going to slide further southwards as the plane breaks up, and make marks further south of the crater.

I submit this wing alignment problem as rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------

Curiously, the wings DO LINE UP with the side scars, if the plane is right side up, as shown below--


However, if the plane was in fact right-side up as it impacted, why a) is the government lying about it, and b) what made the "tail" scar on the northern edge of the crater???

I don't know exactly what happened at this crash scene.

I strongly suspect the crater was made artificially, to make it LOOK as though an airplane crashed there, and then plane debris was strewn around the site. Perhaps a bomb or projectile of some sort was used to create the damage.

In any case, the important point is that: THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS A LIE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

The Official Flight 93 Crash Story Violates Laws of Momentum

Below is an official government photo of the flight 93 crash scene supposedly from 9/12/01. Northwards is to the top of the photo. "Wing" gashes are black marks in the middle of the photo; the central crater is not readily discerned but is between the two wing gashes. Burnt grass and burnt forest is to the south of the crater.


Government photo of the crater looking west along the length of the "wing" gashes. Note the unburnt grass on the right (on the northwards side of the crater).

Another view from a similar angle as in the photo above but further out near the tips of the "wing" gashes. Note the unburnt grass out here.


This aerial photo shows the "tail" scar on the left (northwards) side of the crater:


Diagram of the official crash scene (the top of the diagram is northwards) froma similar view as in the top photo:


Everyone should be able to agree about what I presented above. It is just a description of the crash scene using official photos as evidence.

Now keep in mind, NO LARGE PLANE DEBRIS was found on the ground around the Flight 93 crash site. By large, I mean no intact engines, tail sections, wing sections, no landing gear struts, no intact seats, no pieces of fuselage larger than a few feet across (and only two of these). None of the large debris seen in almost every other plane crash since 9/11.

OFFICIALLY, most of the plane went into the ground in the crater. The black boxes were supposedly found 15 or more feet below ground, along with most of the fuselage. Many people bought this story because there was no significant plane debris outside of the crater.

Again, this is the official story.

Now.. .we've never seen photos of the excavated crater showing the buried fuselage. The FBI says 95% of the plane was recovered, but we've never seen pictures of this recovered debris.

We've seen 3 pictures of "large" debris, two chunks of fuselage maybe 4 x 4 feet each, and a hunk of engine about 2 x 3 feet supposedly thrust into the ground by the crash. Two of these pieces of debris have signs of being planted, as I have noted before.

Nonetheless, let's try to understand what happened with this crash.

UA93 officially impacted the ground flying inverted at a 40 degree nose-down angle.


If the plane crashes into the ground such that it explodes and burrows into the ground, there should be a significant deflection of debris BACKWARDS (as well as other directions). Remember the video of the F4 crashing into the concrete wall. Much of the plane debris was deflected backwards. But for the flight 93 crash site, the grass wasn't even BURNT on the edge of the north side of the crater!


On the other hand, if the plane crashes and at the same time bounces off the ground, then debris would be flung mainly forward. But then there should be much more big debris.


An analogy here might be useful. Imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water on a hard flat surface, at a 40 degree angle. You can see the water primarily splashes forward. This is analogous to the plane crashing and the debris bouncing off the ground and spraying forward.

Now, imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water at a 40 degree angle into a shallow hole in the ground. Now you should see that a lot of water is going to deflect backwards, back towards the hose. This is analogous to the plane crashing and burrowing into the ground and spraying debris backwards.

Physics, simple physics, says the official flight 93 crash story is just WRONG.

Dry Grass Is Resistant to Being Burnt by Exploding Boeing 757 Wings Full of Jet Fuel

If this is true, I guess I really DON'T know much about plane crashes:

Measuring the Flight 93 Crater Again: It's Still Too Small for a Boeing 757

Following up on the post here, this official government image also supports my previous measurements and significantly, the idea that the distance between the engine craters (or engine "scars") is too small:

(click to enlarge images)

Measuring the Flight 93 Crater: It's Still Too Small for a Boeing 757

(click to enlarge images)









Here, A and C denote the "engine" marks, which should be 44 feet apart (center to center) for a Boeing 757. B denotes the central crater presumably made by a the fuselage. We can assume the legs of the person are 3 feet. The orange line denotes the top three feet of a six foot person, and a torso and head are sketched into the image.


Using the measurements from above, we can assign distances to this overheard view of the crater. Now we can clearly see the engine marks are too close together (only 31 feet or so from A to C):


This photo confirms that the engine spacing is too close together (about 33 feet, close to what was measured above):


Here is a Boeing 757 super-imposed on the picture above at proper scale-- the engines don't line up:

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.

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?

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.