Flight 93 Hoax

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Strangest "Plane Crash" Ever

***Permanent top post***

***Permanent top post***

Saturday, January 21, 2012

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.


Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Cartwheel Explanation for the Flight 93 Crash

Sounds pretty bogus-- and pretty much nonsensical:

Somehow I 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.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

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

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.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

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 bogus.

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

Monday, February 12, 2007

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.


Friday, February 09, 2007

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)

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

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:

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.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

On the Fake Flight 93 Shoot-down Story and the Fake Todd Beamer Call

Dave McGowan continues his analysis of Flight 93.

He's found one new important fact-- Lisa Jefferson, the GE operator that Todd Beamer supposedly talked to, has links to a CIA-front operation.

The other info in the article isn't new, but McGowan puts it together probably better than anyone else has before.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

When Did the Forest Near the Crash Crater Burn?

Killtown makes a case that it burned largely after 9/11.

It seems to me as though some of the trees were on fire early on 9/11, but perhaps the fire burned on for a while-- flared-up overnight? Was that on purpose?

Why wasn't more attempt made to put out the forest fire?

Also, why were the tops of the trees on fire while the ground below was largely left untouched?

Monday, December 18, 2006

All Public Flight 93 Crash Images

Archived here by Killtown.

Kudos to Killtown for putting this together!

Scrap Metal Dumped at Crash Site from Nearby Junkyard?

Killtown wonders.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Rare News Footage Describing the Crash Site

Raytheon Drone and Microwave Weapon Involved in Shanksville Crash Scene?

Makes about as much sense as anything else, I suppose.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Some Ideas on the Crash Crater and the Burnt Trees

from Killtown.

I'm not sure I buy the idea of ordnance bouncing out of the crater to hit the trees, but overall I think there is something to the idea that something bounced out that way.

Tere was quite a bit of debris thrown into the forest-- not a huge amount, as far as I can tell, but still a fair amount, which included victims' remains and some clothes from the luggage. Was there some explosive package that contained this stuff that was dropped from above?

All I know for sure is the flight 93 crater makes no sense for a crash of a 757.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Good Overview of the Various Flight 93 Crash Images

This image is amazing:

It's like some sort of ghostplane hit the ground, dug a crater and disappeared.

Monday, September 04, 2006

One Last Visit to the Flight 93 Crash Site?

Here is the basic layout of the flight 93 crash site (all based on official accounts and sources):
A) an impact crater in a open field, about 10 feet deep, 30 feet by 10 feet in dimensions, with what looks like wing marks out to each side.
B) badly burnt trees, about 200 feet from the impact crater, at the edge of a small forest. Curiously, this damage was not in line with the official flight path.
C) No large recognizable plane debris was anywhere around the impact crater. Officially, one engine was found 800-1000 feet away, in line with the plane path, and officially, the burned forest had plane debris, including fuselage parts. Also, officially, one engine was found lodged in or near the impact crater and the cockpit data recorder (normally located in the tail section) was found very deep down in the impact crater (25 feet). There are no clear reports that I am aware of finding any main landing gear, wing pieces, tail sections or intact seats. A significant amount of small debris was found up to eight miles from the official crash site. Reports on how much of the total plane was recovered are conflicted. Officially, only very small amounts of passenger remains were found.

For further reading, I highly recommend this page, which has a very excellent and extensive analysis of the flight 93 crash scene, with links to only mainstream news articles.

SO, how do we explain this crash site?

The most extended official explanation for the flight 93 crash comes from Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes" (as far as I know, there is no NTSB report on the crash). In that book, he posits that before crashing, the plane was flying upside down (based on eyewitness reports and the crater alignment). The plane then hit at a 45 degree angle and the front third of the plane shattered completely on the ground, spewing debris all around. The rear two thirds of the plane rammed deep into the soft earth, and crumpled in an accordion-like fashion. This would explain the black boxes being deep in the ground. The front fuselage apparently shattered into very small fragments. Longman does not explain what happened to the tail section and wings. He says the passengers and crew were completely torn apart, and that the main remains were small fragments of skin. It is not clear what happened to the skeletal remains or teeth of the passengers.

This explanation is of course absurd, as this story defies physics. Basically it is impossible that the front of the plane disintegrate while the rear part of the plane enter the ground as an intact piece. This is akin to ramming a pretzel stick into an orange, where the front one third of the pencil smashes into crumbs right before the rear two-thirds penetrate the skin and drive deep into the fruit. One could see the whole pretzel stick penetrating the orange, or the front of the pretzel breaking off before the rest goes in-- but in this case the front piece would not turn into tiny crumbs. Basically, any material that is strong enough to cause the front of a projectile to smash apart is not going to allow the rear part of the projectile to slide completely in.

It is also absurd to think that the huge tail section went into the ground completely, yet how else to explain the black boxes being so deep underground, since the black boxes are kept in the tail section? The idea ANY sort of projectile could drive itself 25' deep under the soil is absurd.

So the official story is a lie. There is no doubt.

But clearly the shoot-down story that many people persist in believing is a lie as well. No shot down plane will crash like this either.

Frankly, the easiest explanation for the whole crash scene is that it was a staged hoax-- where there were planted explosives along with some junk debris that went off to coincide with a plane flying over. Then plane parts and body parts were planted, and debris was strewn over a wide area to be misleading. It is curious to note how the 9/11 commission says flight 93 officially crashed at 10:03 am, but the explosion by many accounts wasn't until 10:06am. This could be explained by a discrepency in whatever the plane was doing that was mimicking flight 93 versus the actual explosion. Finally, of course, the many phone calls from flight 93 are highly suspicious due to a number of abnormalities, and were likely another layer of deception.

Nonetheless, I welcome any other explanation for the flight 93 crash site that takes into account the facts as I outlined above. You can contact me by email (spooked911@hotmail.com).

Friday, August 25, 2006

Yet Another Plane Crash Leaves Recognizable Debris and Bodies


Even bodies that could be put in body bags.

This was a large plane that fell from the sky at over 30,000 feet. It was going fast.

Postman Patel has more, with some good links.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Photo-Shopping the Flight 93 Smoke Plume

It ain't hard at all.

And there is a lot more where that came from.

The Flight 93 Crash Site: Still Unexplained

How can a huge (Boeing 757) jet completely disintegrate and only leave a 10 foot wide by 50 foot long by 10 foot deep crater?

No one seriously believes the plane disappeared into the ground, do they?

I have yet to see anyone give a rational explanation for what happened to the plane according to the official story.

In my opinion, the flight 93 crater is one of the most obvious clues to the 9/11 hoax. Which is probably why flight 93 was shrouded in sentimental and patriotic mythology. And the obvious hoax of the flight 93 crash site is also why the government deliberately put out rumors that flight 93 was shot down.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The Flight 93 Crash Smoke Plume Photo

Is the plume real and in the wrong spot? Or a photoshop job?

Certainly the former is extremely interesting and proves the crash was a hoax.

But even if the smoke was a photoshop job, the implication is that the FBI was in on it.

Why would they fake the picture?

More here.

Monday, July 10, 2006

The Flight 93 Engines: WTF???

This post by Killtown pointed me to this picture of one of the flight 93 engines that was supposedly dug up from the crater (a picture released at the Moussaoui trial):

Now, already this is odd, because officially the rear three-quarters of the 150 foot long flight 93 fuselage "accordioned" and disappeared into the hole completely, 30 feet below the earth's surface.* The two black boxes were found 15 and 25 feet underground!* Yet here we have the massive jet engine-- with all it's weight and thrust--that barely managed to penetrate the surface of the ground!

But beyond that, a Boeing 757 of course has TWO engines. What happened to the other one?

Many of you may recall that the fate of one of the flight 93 engines was already famously described in the press very early on. According to mainstream media accounts, the other engine landed over a thousand feet from the crash site, as shown in this diagram from Popular Mechanics:

This story of one of the engines being found so far from the crash crater led to the theory** that flight 93 was actually shot down by a heat-seeng missile that targeted one engine, blowing it off and causing it to land far from the rest of the plane.

The supporters of the official 9/11 story, such as Popular Mechanics, said there was no shootdown, that the engine merely ricocheted off the ground as the plane impacted and was flung over a thousand feet by the force of the crash.

And now we seem to know what happened to both of the flight 93 engines. One broke off as the plane crashed and bounced over a thousand feet away by the force of the crash, and the other was deposited in the crash crater.

No problem then, right?

Err, well, um, I have a wee problem with this scenario.

Officially, when the plane crashed, it went more or less straight into the ground:

Leaving aside the many other oddities of the flight 93 crash site, there is this question: if flight 93 simply crashed into the ground as the official story holds, how could the two engines suffer such completely different fates? How is it possible that one engine burrowed into the ground right next to the plane while the other engine broke off and flew a quarter of a mile away? What accounts for this huge discrepency? Even if the plane hit at an angle such that one engine hit first, it is not at all clear to me how this explains the discrepency. Remember, the BULK of the plane officially burrowed into the soft ground (which was mostly topsoil covering an old stripmine). What would have caused one engine to break off and bounce so far away? And why did the second engine not burrow into the ground as deeply as the huge fuselage?

This is part of the reason why I think the flight 93 crash is most likely a massive hoax.

*Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes" Harper Collins, 2002

**e.g. David Ray Griffin "The New Pearl Harbor, Dsiturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11", Olive brnach Press, 2004

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Killtown Wonders

what happened to all the dirt?

Some good pictures.

Also, was the engine part planted?

Wednesday, June 28, 2006


the supposed remains of flight 93.

Some new ones in this collection for me, and the high resolution pictures are cool.

Ultimately though, there simply should be more debris-- such as a tail section, landing gear, wheels, and lots of seats.

Some parts, such as the stripped clean fuselage piece with window holes, have the look of being planted.

It is funny how a similar-looking smashed-up engine was found at all three 9/11 crash sites, but not one seat or tail section.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Excellent Flight 93 Documentary

from Italy.

Most of the interviews are in English though.

It's real short and hits some of the more interesting parts of the crash.

Friday, April 28, 2006

"Flight 93" Makes Up Key Details

Most interesting is the fact that the movie-makers decided the passengers killed two hijackers, and also suggests that the pilots were killed by the hijackers -- when in reality, this simply is not known (and probably never happened either).

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Hunt the Boeing: Shanksville Edition

A classic.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Flight 93 Crash-- Why Were the Tops of the Trees Burned But Not the Ground?

See here.

Seems like the NEW flight 93 evidence raises as many questions as the OLD.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Will Bunch Questions the Air Defense Response

and other things as well about flight 93.

Good for him:
On 9/11, where was NORAD, the jet fighter squadron tasked with defending America's skies?

For four-and-and-a-half years, there has been contradictory evidence whether Flight 93 -- the fourth hijacked plane, which crashed in a field in western Pennsylvania -- was intercepted by military jets or not. A number of Shanksville residents saw a white jet nearby that was military in nature. But the Pentagon's story has been that the doomed jetliner was never intercepted -- even though Dick Cheney in the White House situation room was ordering exactly that.

Now, the 31-minute cockpit tape seems to back up the official version. The tapes will not be played out loud for the general public -- that's standard procedure -- but the transcript reveals no comments by the hijackers that explicitly mention other planes.

Some of the comments and actions still seem ambiguous -- at 10:00:09, when a hijacker says in Arabic, "When they all come, we finish it off," they is presumed to mean the passengers and probably does -- but could also mean jet fighters.

Also interesting is this hijacker comment at 9:53:12: "Let him look through the window." The standard procedure for NORAD in intercepting a hijacked jetliner would be to circle to cockpit and visually ID who was flying the plane. On the other hand, the NORAD pilot would also try to contact the hijacker pilots by radio -- and the tape seems to give no indication that happened (assuming, of course, the cockpit was even picking up radio transmissions.)

The problem for the Bush administration on Flight 93 has been the ultimate lying-or-incompetence situation. Today, they did what should have been done four years ago, and played the tape -- insisting that, "See, we were never lying." Fine -- we won't contest that, for now.

So why were you so incompetent?

At 9:39 that morning, when the Cleveland ATC confirmed that there was a bomb or a hijacking on Flight 93, FAA or NORAD officials had known of hijackings for at least one hour and 14 minutes, according to researcher Paul Thompson's excellent timeline. Both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon had been struck, and jet fighters capable of flying nearly 200 miles in just 10 minutes had been scrambled.

NORAD's failure to confront Flight 93 defies belief, and the cockpit recording only amplifies that. Nor has the government ever fully explained why intercept procedures that worked dozen of times before 9/11 failed the one time that it really mattered.

There are a lot of questions that we'd hoped the release of the cockpit tape would answer -- but most are still a mystery.

-- Did the heroic passengers reach the cockpit, or didn't they?

-- Did the hijackers murder the two pilots, or were they kept alive for possible use later in the flight?

-- Why would the al-Qaeda pilots crash the plane on purpose rather than fight the passengers to the death -- seeing as they were already on a suicide mission?

-- Why does the tape end at 10:03:09, when the world's best "forensic seismologist" told us in 2002 that he was 100 percent certain the jet crashed at 10:06.

And those are just a few big ones -- there are many others.

Meanwhile, we remain dismayed at the hypnotic trance that continue to hover other both the media and -- hard as it is to believe -- the blogosphere when it comes to 9/11. Think about it this way -- there is "the real world" and then there is "9/11 world."

In the "real world," the Bush administration lies constantly, about uranium from Niger, mushroom clouds in Iraq, or mobile WMD labs that are really "sand toilets." But in "9/11 world," those very same people in the White House have never told a lie, and never been challenged. Unfortunately, "9/11 world" continued to trump the "real world" during the Iraq war run-up of 2002-2003.

Likewise, for the media, "9/11 world" is a place where facts don't matter. Example? This morning, CNN's Kelli Arena said that a comment on the tape, "Roll it," was related to the famous remarks by passenger Todd Beamer. In fact, Beamer had been speaking on an in-plane telephone when he said, "Let's roll." "Roll it" was likely a failed attempt by the passenger to break into the cockpit with a food cart.

And the brave blogosphere, we looked tonight for commentary on this important event, and found almost none. What are you people so afraid of.

Maybe someday, we can look at the events of 9/11 with the same jaundiced eye that we view the rest of the Bush administration, from Iraq to Katrina. Maybe that tipping point came today. We hope so.

Highly Suspicious Wreckage

Fairly pristine grass/foliage underneath the piece. You would think that if there were enough fire/heat to strip every bit of insulation and facing and windows and their seals, there would be enough residual heat to brown the grass/foliage where this fragment landed.

Cockpit Transcript Released!!!

Link here.

The following is a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder aboard United Airlines Flight 93. All times are in EDT on Sept. 11, 2001. Text in parentheses was translated from Arabic. ``Unintelligible'' indicates that the tape couldn't be transcribed.

09:31:57 _ Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.

09:32:09 _ Er, uh ... Calling Cleveland center ... You're unreadable. Say again slowly.

09:32:10 _ Don't move. Shut up.

09:32:13 _ Come on, come.

09:32:16 _ Shut up.

09:32:17 _ Don't move.

09:32:18 _ Stop.

09:32:34 _ Sit, sit, sit down.

09:32:39 _ Sit down.

09:32:41 _ Unintelligible ... (the brother.)

09:32:54 _ Stop.

09:33:09 _ No more. Sit down.

09:33:10 _ (That's it, that's it, that's it), down, down.

09:33:14 _ Shut up.

09:33:20 _ Unintelligible

09:33:20 _ We just, we didn't get it clear ... Is that United 93 calling?

09:33:30 _ (Jassim.)

09:33:34 _ (In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate.)

09:33:41 _ Unintelligible.

09:33:43 _ Finish, no more. No more.

09:33:49 _ No. No, no, no, no.

09:33:53 _ No, no, no, no.

09:34:00 _ Go ahead, lie down. Lie down. Down, down, down.

09:34:06 _ (There is someone ... Huh?)

09:34:12 _ Down, down, down. Sit down. Come on, sit down. No, no, no, no, no. No.

09:34:16 _ Down, down, down.

09:34:21 _ Down.

09:34:25 _ No more.

09:34:26 _ No more. Down.

09:34:27 _ Please, please, please ...

09:34:28 _ Down.

09:34:29 _ Please, please, don't hurt me ...

09:34:30 _ Down. No more.

09:34:31 _ Oh God.

09:34:32 _ Down, down, down.

09:34:33 _ Sit down.

09:34:34 _ Shut up.

09:34:42 _ No more.

09:34:46 _ (This?)

09:34:47 _ Yes.

09:34:47 _ Unintelligible.

09:34:57 _ (One moment, one moment.)

09:34:59 _ Unintelligible.

09:35:03 _ No more.

09:35:06 _ Down, down, down, down.

09:35:09 _ No, no, no, no, no, no...

09:35:10 _ Unintelligible.

09:35:15 _ Sit down, sit down, sit down.

09:35:17 _ Down.

09:35:18 _ (What's this?)

09:35:19 _ Sit down. Sit down. You know, sit down.

09:35:24 _ No, no, no.

09:35:30 _ Down, down, down, down.

09:35:32 _ Are you talking to me?

09:35:33 _ No, no, no. Unintelligible.

09:35:35 _ Down in the airport.

09:35:39 _ Down, down.

09:35:40 _ I don't want to die.

09:35:41 _ No, no. Down, down.

09:35:42 _ I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

09:35:44 _ No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down.

09:35:47 _ No, no, please.

09:35:57 _ No.

09:37:06 _ (That's it. Go back.)

09:37:06 _ (That's it.) Sit down.

09:37:36 _(Everthing is fine. I finished.)

09:38:36 _ (Yes.)

09:39:11 _ Ah. Here's the captain. I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet.

09:39:21 _ OK. That's 93 calling?

09:39:24 _ (One moment.)

09:39:34 _ United 93. I understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead.

09:39:42 _ And center exec jet nine fifty-six. That was the transmission.

09:39:47 _ OK. Ah. Who called Cleveland?

09:39:52 _ Executive jet nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?

09:39:56 _ Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board.

09:39:58 _ That was all you got out of it also?

09:40:01 _ Affirmative.

09:40:03 _ Roger.

09:40:03 _ United 93. Go ahead.

09:40:14 _United 93. Go ahead.

09:40:17 _ Ahhh.

09:40:52 _ (This green knob?)

09:40:54 _ (Yes, that's the one.)

09:41:05 _ United 93, do you hear the Cleveland center?

09:41:14 _ (One moment. One moment.)

09:41:15 _ Unintelligible.

09:41:56 _ Oh man.

09:44:18 _ (This does not work now.)

09:45:13 _ Turn it off.

09:45:16 _ (... Seven thousand ...)

09:45:19 _ (How about we let them in? We let the guys in now.)

09:45:23 _ (OK.)

09:45:24 _ (Should we let the guys in?)

09:45:25 _ (Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back.)

09:45:57 _ (In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other God, but Allah.)

09:47:31 _ Unintelligible.

09:47:40 _ (Allah knows.)

09:48:15 _ Unintelligible.

09:48:38 _ Set course.

09:49:37 _ Unintelligible.

09:51:17 _ Unintelligible.

09:51:35 _ Unintelligible.

09:52:02 _ Unintelligible.

09:52:31 _ Unintelligible.

09:53:20 _ (The best thing: The guys will go in, lift up the) ... Unintelligible ... (and they put the axe into it. So, everyone will be scared.)

09:53:27 _ (Yes.)

09:53:28 _ (The axe.)

09:53:28 _ Unintelligible.

09:53:29 _ (No, not the.)

09:53:35 _ (Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window.)

09:53:52 _ Unintelligible.

09:54:09 _ (Open.)

09:54:11 _ Unintelligible.

09:55:06 _ You are ... One ...

09:56:15 _ Unintelligible.

09:57:55 _ (Is there something?)

09:57:57 _ (A fight?)

09:54:59 _ (Yeah?)

09:58:33 _ Unintelligible. (Let's go guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest.)

09:58:41 _ Ugh.

09:58:43 _ Ugh.

09:58:44 _ (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.)

09:58:47 _ Ugh. Ugh.

09:58:52 _ Stay back.

09:58:55 _ In the cockpit.

09:58:57 _ In the cockpit.

09:58:57 _ (They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold).

09:59:04 _ Hold the door.

09:59:09 _ Stop him.

09:59:11 _ Sit down.

09:59:13 _ Sit down.

09:59:15 _ Sit down.

09:58:16 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:17 _ (What?)

09:59:18 _ (There are some guys. All those guys.)

09:59:20 _ Lets get them.

09:59:25 _ Sit down.

09:59:29 _ (What?)

09:59:30 _ (What.)

09:59:31 _ (What?)

09:59:36 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:37 _ (What?)

09:59:39 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:41 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:42 _ (Trust in Allah, and in him.)

09:59:45 _ Sit down.

09:59:47 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:53 _ Ahh.

09:59:55 _ Unintelligible.

09:59:58 _ Ahh.

10:00:06 _ (There is nothing.)

10:00:07 _ (Is that it? Shall we finish it off?)

10:00:08 _ (No. Not yet.)

10:00:09 _ (When they all come, we finish it off.)

10:00:11 _ (There is nothing.)

10:00:13 _ Unintelligible.

10:00:14 _ Ahh.

10:00:15 _ I'm injured.

10:00:16 _ Unintelligible.

10:00:21 _ Ahh.

10:00:22 _ (Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious.)

10:00:25 _ In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die.

10:00:29 _ (Up, down. Up, down, in the) cockpit.

10:00:33 _ (The) cockpit.

10:00:37 _ (Up, down. Saeed, up, down.)

10:00:42 _ Roll it.

10:00:55 _ Unintelligible.

10:00:59 _ (Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest.)

10:01:01 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:08 _ (Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?)

10:01:09 _ (Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.)

10:01:10 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:11 _ (Saeed.)

10:01:12 _ ... engine ...

10:01:13 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:16 _ (Cut off the oxygen.)

10:01:18 _ (Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.)

10:01:34 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:37 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:41 _ (Up, down. Up, down.)

10:01:41 _ (What?)

10:01:42 _ (Up, down.)

10:01:42 _ Ahh.

10:01:53 _ Ahh.

10:01:54 _ Unintelligible.

10:01:55 _ Ahh.

10:01:59 _ Shut them off.

10:02:03 _ Shut them off.

10:02:14 _ Go.

10:02:14 _ Go.

10:02:15 _ Move.

10:02:16 _ Move.

10:02:17 _ Turn it up.

10:02:18 _ (Down, down.)

10:02:23 _ (Pull it down. Pull it down.)

10:02:25 _ Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33 _ (Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:35 _ (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:37 _ (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)

10:02:40 _ Unintelligible.

10:03:02 _ (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:03 _ (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:04 _ (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:06 _ (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03;06 _ (Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:07 _ No.

10:03:09 _ (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

10:03:09 _ (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

Not a whole lot of useful information here. A lot of repetition. Interesting, not much in the way of actual conversation about flying the plane! You would think a novice might have more trouble than what we hear! (granted, there are a lot of unintelligible things that might be flying conversation, but still...)

What does this mean? "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down." Put it in it??? In what? Are they talking about the plane or something else?

The actual tape would be much more useful, to hear the expressions and what voices were english versus hijacker.

If we assume this is a scam, presumably actors would be saying all these things. The actual tape could tell us how good the actors were...

The only other thing of interest is who the non-hijacker person in the cockpit is who pleads early on. A pilot or other crew member?

We still don't know what happened to the pilots!

Flight 93 Found!

At least some new fragments of it.

I'm very curious how the govt explained how 93 crashed to produce so little visible debris, and I wonder why they showed new pictures of debris that have never been seen before:

Of course, this is always the problem for 9/11 researchers: the govt has confiscated so much evidence and not shown much of anything, so now they literally can pull out anything and say it proves the official story-- and we are hard put to refute it.

What I will say is that the official flight 93 crash story still makes no sense.

The new pictures of debris could easily have come from some other spot where the plane crashed or the parts were planted, of course. Or maybe even flight 93 crashed where they say it did, and the media/govt has done a crappy job of explaining the crash/showing the evidence.

What I will also say is these few new pieces of debris are a still only a tiny fraction of what a huge Boeing 757 would produce.

What is amusing/interesting is comparing the new pictures of flight 93 debris to the sad little collection of parts that were shown in this article (scroll down for slideshow link). E.g.

Much like the other three plane crashes on 9/11, we have a few recognizable plane parts, no attempt at matching the exact parts to the plane that crashed, and nowhere near enough pieces of debris to account for the huge planes that crashed.

I will analyze the flight 93 cockpit transcript that was released here.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Very Early Article on Flight 93 with Picture Gallery of the Crash Site


Saturday, February 25, 2006

Where Is the Wreckage of UAL93?????

Excellent article here.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Smells, Body Pieces

USAir Flight 427:
Picking through the wreckage, they got the first clues.

The engine fan blades were bent backward from the way they rotated, which meant the engines were running when the plane struck the hill. That ruled out engine problems.

In the mangled cockpit, the airspeed indicator was at 264 knots – about 300 mph – the plane's speed at impact.

Passenger belongings littered the woods: boxer shorts with red diamonds, a flight attendant's apron, a Hooters T-shirt, a Purdue University sweat shirt.

There were lots of books: Forrest Gump, the Pocket Prayer Book, Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be, a John Grisham novel, a management training manual called Firing Up Commitments During Organizational Change and the Bible.

And everyday stuff: a garage door opener, family snapshots, a teddy bear, a Swiss Army knife, pocket calculators, a rosary.

Full-size body bags arrived for the victims, but the bodies were in so many pieces that most were taken from the hill in 1-gallon Ziploc freezer bags.

The site was considered a biohazard. Investigators and wreckage were sprayed with a Clorox solution when they left the hill. Summer downpours and the hot rubber suits made for wretched working conditions. The smell of bleach and the unforgettable odor of death made a suffocating stench. Investigators dabbed cologne, orange juice or Vicks VapoRub on their surgical masks to hide the odor. Haueter smeared his mustache with Tiger Balm, a sweet-smelling ointment.

Wayne Tatalovich, the Beaver County coroner, converted an Air Force Reserve hangar into a giant morgue. Identifying the victims went slowly. There were 132 people on the plane, but 2,000 Ziploc bags.

"A&E's 'Flight 93' gets it right, no 757 at Shanksville!"

Pictures here. They did a fairly accurate reconstruction of the crater, including the lack of burnt grass AROUND the crater.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

I Read the WingTV Book

The one mentioned here.

Their basic scenario is that:
1) flight 93 crashed in New Baltimore after being shot down by the air force
2) the government hid this real crash site and created a fake crash site near Shanskville
3) the plane was going so fast that it was only a few seconds from Shanksville to New Baltimore, so it was possible to fake the Shanksville crash site
4) the Shanksville crash site was created by a missile, which one witness saw flying (forget her name, but she saw a weird white jet going overhead around the time of the crash)
5) flight 93 was real

Their BIG 9/11 scenario is that the whole 9/11 plan by the government was screwed up by flight 93 leaving late from Newark Airport. This is actually Dave McGowan's idea-- that flight 93 leaving late ruined the Washington DC attack part of the plan (DC was supposed to get hit by two planes at the same time as NYC, thus creating a rationale why there was no air defense).

The WingTV folks don't say much about the hijackings, or remote control, but they definitely seem to believe there was a real flight 93. They don't say what was really on flight 93 that the government needed to cover-up.

I think their basic logic is that if flight 93 had left on time, then DC would have been hit early and there would have been no air defense. But because flight 93 left late, and because flight 93 was supposed to coordinate with flight 77, the Pentagon attack got altered (though they don't say what DID happen at the Pentagon). Thus, according to the WingTV people, there was SOME air defense that eventually got to flight 93 and shot it down.

The problem for me here is that it is not clear that even early attacks on DC would have led to a virtual stand-down for the air force. This is one reason I like the no-plane idea better.

But my main question is--- why on EARTH would government plotters (or terrorists for that matter) rest their whole evil plan (i.e., they had to hit DC first to insure no air defense) on A PLANE LEAVING ON TIME FROM NEWARK AIRPORT???????!!!!!

Friday, January 27, 2006

Were There Two Flight 93s???

Plane Swap Over Pennsylvania; Flight 93 and his Doppelganger - by Woody Box

9/11 researcher Woody Box has a new piece out on flight 93, and finds fairly convincing evidence that flight 93 was a twin-flight, which underwent a plane swap towards the end.

Since he thinks one of these planes landed near Pittsburgh and one at National Airport near DC, this two-plane scenario is still consistent with the idea that the flight 93 crash crater is a hoax. The plane swap idea might also support the idea of flight 93 being involved in the Air Force hijacking drill wargames that day.

Of course the big mystery is WHY was flight 93 set-up to run like this, with a faked crash site along with a plane swap?

This needs more thinkin'.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

New Flight 93 Theory

A new book from WingTV:
Flight 93 Hoax: SOLVED

Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax puts forth an extremely convincing argument that Flight 93 did not meet its demise in Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of September 11, 2001, but was instead shot down by U.S. military forces and subsequently crash landed in the rural hamlet of New Baltimore, Pa., 6-8 miles away from where the government alleges this event took place. Furthermore, to create a massive diversionary site to draw attention away from the actual wreckage in New Baltimore, a missile was fired into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville, Pa. – the result of this ordnance blast being a 200-foot mushroom cloud and an 8-10 foot deep crater, but absolutely no airplane wreckage whatsoever. In other words, while the media’s attention was focused on Shanksville, the actual debris from Flight 93 was clandestinely being scuttled away from New Baltimore, Pa., which had been immediately cordoned-off by the FBI and local State Police.

Also included in Phantom Flight 93:

- First-hand eyewitness testimony of a missile being launched into Shanksville, which resulted in a massive hoax and cover-up being perpetrated on the American people.
- Claims that emergency rooms in Shanksville were originally notified to be prepared for victims from TWO separate airplane crash sites.
- The emergence of three (or more) wreckage-debris sites in Southwest Pennsylvania, not simply one as the government alleges.
- Irrefutable evidence that there was NO plane at Shanksville, but instead Flight 93 (or something purporting to be Flight 93) actually crash landed in New Baltimore, Pa.
- Admissions by the Department of Defense based on seismographic data that the government blatantly lied about its Flight 93 timeline.
- 9-11 Deconstructed: What Went Wrong – how the real devils behind 9-11 blew it – a list of six major tactical blunders that allowed researchers to expose the lies of this horrific event, along with a brief history of other failed examples of state-sponsored terrorism, including OKC, the USS Liberty, and WTC ’93.
- The Evil 13: 9-11 Master-Minds named by name, along with their nefarious dossiers!
- 9-11 Passenger List oddities, including the mystery of Todd and Lisa Beamer
- Plus gag orders, faked cell phone calls, human remains found at Indian Lake marina, a confession that the U.S. military shot down a plane on the morning of 9-11, and much more.

Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax completely shreds the government’s ‘official’ version of events, and reveals that something far more sinister occurred near Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of 9-11 than was ever revealed to the American public.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Did Flight 93 Crash Near New Baltimore?

From Shanksville, the official crash site for flight 93...
"The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.

"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.

For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.

"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner."
(emphasis added)

This story would seem to support the idea that the plane crashed in New Baltimore or was damaged very close to New Baltimore. There is no way that so much debris blew eight miles specifically into her yard. EIGHT MILES is a long way on the weak wind that day.

This fellow says that Flight 93 was going the opposite way from the official story before it crashed, after the passengers regained control, and that it was shot by air force interceptors initially over New Baltimore. His scenario fits the debris field (another major debris field was Indian Lake, three miles from the official crash site), but I don't buy his "semi-official" interpretation of the flight 93 story (with the evil hijackers and heroic passengers), as the phone calls of flight 93 are just too bizarre, and the Shanskville crater still doesn't add up. Nonetheless, it is worth considering that the plane was going the other way and was shot by fighters.

But to make things more confusing, this article places plane debris half a mile to one mile north of the official crash site. So, what direction WAS the wind blowing that day?

It is hard for me to figure out what really happened, if there were two planes, if fake debris was scattered or something even stranger.

Was Flight 93 Part of the 9/11 Hijacking Exercises?

There are two ways to treat the flight 93 hijacking story: either to try to make sense of the official story or to assume the hijacking was fake and part of one of the hijacking exercises being run on 9/11. I think the latter makes more sense.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

The Ultimate Flight 93 Question

How could flight crash so forcefully and explode so violently as to cause most of the plane to disintegrate into small fragments and to almost completely vaporize the passengers, and still create such a compact, plane-shaped crater?

Flight 93 Crater near Shanksville, PA Posted by Picasa

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Comparison of Craters

Between the Nigerian airliner crash and flight 93 here.

The Smell of Death

A hand and leg lay on the ground. No identifiable bodies could be seen but the smell of death hung close.
-- a description of the recent airliner crash scene in Nigeria.

This is quite different from the flight 93 "crash scene", where almost no human remains were apparent near the crash site and NO ONE reported any death smell.

The official story is that the human remains were not visible because the bodies were almost completely burned upon impact of the plane and the subsequent explosion:
As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.
But if 6000 pounds of human flesh burned, WOULDN'T IT SMELL ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE at the crash site?

But instead, people who arrived at the scene very shortly after the crash only spoke of the smell of jet fuel and the smell of burning rubber from a burning tire. No one spoke of the smell of burnt flesh-- which is a very distinct and horrible smell.

Very very odd-- and along with the fact that the coroner never saw any blood anywhere, supports the idea that the human remains were planted, and the flight 93 crash site faked.

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!