Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Rare Footage of Flight 93 [Seen on TV Only Once]

truthera.com — Rare Footage of Flight 93 [Seen on TV Only Once]

Bury

virtuexru 1 year 102 days ago, made popular 1 year 101 days ago

2607 diggs
digg it

425 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

DariusMonsef, on 10/11/2007, -52/+314I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just curious... how does a plane vaporize?
- econoar, on 10/11/2007, -63/+286This footage was never seen again because the news crew was looking in the wrong area and this isn't even the direct crash site. I've read the story before. They pulled it because they didn't want to look foolish, that is all. Nothing "vaporized".
- dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -79/+158Rumsfeld said it got shot down
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0
  
  Judging by the video in the topic .. what Rumsfeld says makes sense.
  
  So much for the 'official' 911 story.
- ViRaZ, on 10/11/2007, -11/+175@ dukeeeey
  
  Funny how the two people behind Rumsfeld both look to their left as if to ask someone else "What the f*ck did he just say?"
- dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -59/+37interesting observation viraz
  
  Also, while we are on the topic of flight 93. This is an interesting read.
  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/230804visafound.htm
  
  Also, I 'love' the fact that even though the plane appeared to be totally destroyed, wreckage of it covering up to 8 miles .. that somehow a 'hijackers' bandanna managed to survive completely unscathed. Seriously .. take a look at this pic
  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/red_bandana.jpg
  
  From MSNBC
  "Three men wearing red bandannas are in control. The passengers had been herded to the back of the plane, near the galley.... etc"
  
  Then "wow" they found one looking like spanking new in the debris.
  
  http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -40/+97I'm no expert, but usually when planes crash they know they're going down and dump all their fuel... These guys crashed it into the ground with a full tank, at full speed. Could be why there's little debris.
- vvargoal, on 10/11/2007, -77/+316Heh, all you stupid sheep, believing the media.
  
  It was cheney, he had a missile launcher. He shot the plane down, then fired another at the pentagon. Meanwhile, bush was sitting in new york and pushed the plunger that blew up the world trade center. And it was all for the oil.
- bs0l, on 10/11/2007, -9/+70Direct youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
- blackgrape, on 10/11/2007, -34/+13A plane is mostly air. And fuel. And explosive gas.
- ninephoenixes, on 10/11/2007, -23/+4Fractal-zapped by extradimensional beings
- 80hd, on 10/11/2007, -18/+9I have to agree...
  
  It seems that the footage, while documenting a real tragedy, is of such poor quality that it's really useless and that's why it's likely to have avoided otherwise deserved attention.
- just1guy, on 10/11/2007, -19/+96USAir Flight 427 crashed outside of Pittsburgh in '94. Same result as Flight 93, nothing left. It does happen given enough force (speed) and fuel.
  
  Pic: http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/427-585/usair427.jpg
- ryodoan, on 10/11/2007, -29/+11Man, this thread sure is bulking out my block list.
- EridanMan, on 10/11/2007, -53/+84Dude... Conspiracy is like any other form of religion. The people who believe in it do so not because it is logical, but because believing in it makes them feel 'special' and 'powerful' in some way...
  
  Like any highly-manipulative faith-based topic, of course people are going to find reason (whether it be for personal or political gain) to manipulate the mass of lemmings to 'believe it', and to re-enforce their fantasy...
- weeeezzll, on 10/11/2007, -24/+61Yea...and a 10x20 foot hole made by a 747 airplane...lol
- Krumley, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42Take a look at wreckage from Flight 427, a 737 that experienced a rudder failure and went nearly straight down:
  
  http://www.sptimes.com/28-seconds/zulu1.html
  
  I can't speak to the cause of Flight 93's demise either way, but it looks sort of similar- Flight 427 seems to have sort of exploded on impact; I remember the TV news coverage, and didn't see a crater, but lots of spread out wreckage.
- Krumley, on 10/11/2007, -15/+3Oops. I tried to remove my comment above, without success, after I saw that just1guy already posted a Flight 427 reference.
- readthis, on 10/11/2007, -51/+81I'm a conspiracy theorist and I'm proud of it.
  
  To investigate all evidence is scientific, to question is patriotic, but to be assimilated by conspiring men with monetary and political agendas is asinine.
- superal1394, on 10/11/2007, -27/+67Ever seen the carcass of a Porchea after it flew off a road at 140 miles an hour? That happened near where I live, two kids died in the crash, their bodies were disintigrated. They had to dig to find teeth. There was no car left.
  
  Multiply the speed by 5, the weight by 1000, and the fuel by 1000000
  
  Tell me if there should be any remains left. I am amazed anything recognizable could even survive.
- Hiki, on 10/11/2007, -19/+8@EridanMan
  
  ...or, it could be because they truly believe that someone is manipulating the truth. If a conspiracy is a form of religion, it must be the most unadulterated one out there.
- broncophan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1It hits the Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Detritus, on 10/11/2007, -29/+88I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, this is an emotional issue for every American. Let's throw all the theories and official reports out for a second and consider a few facts:
  
  1) Bush really is running the show. There is no secret cabal. I thought this too for the longest time, or that Cheney is pulling the strings, (hell I voted for him the first time assuming Cheney would keep him out of trouble) but as more and more people are ***** canned from the administration the truth has gotten out: This coke-fiend really is the leader of the free world.
  
  2) Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were not the heroes they were made out to be. This administration does have a pronounced and documented history of lieing to us.
  
  3) Bush can't cope with simple math. If you have 2 apples, and you put 1 apple in Afghanistan... you cannot make lemonade! Have you ever met someone who had a serious coke problem? That ***** fries your brain forever. He didn't have the means to invade Iraq or a solid strategy for a sustained victory, he had ***** Jesus Christ telling him to do it! The same amount of forethought can be expected in all of his behavior, so trying to ascribe some grand scheme to this guy is just not fair.
  
  4) Bill Kristol and the "Project for a New American Century" (the neo-con manifesto) felt that the best thing that could possibly happen to America would be another Pearl Harbor because the retaliation would revitalize the lagging military industrial complex.
  
  Now come to your own conclusions. Don't just blindly buy into the official story, but don't listen to nutjob blogs either.
- DrDabbles, on 10/11/2007, -20/+37@Detritus
  
  Thank GOD someone else is saying this. Does anybody really think these people are _smart_ enough to pull this off? Even if you excuse the fact that people can't keep secrets, you still need at least ONE person smart enough to dupe everybody.
  
  What's more, I watched the whole thing live. There was debris. You can say there wasn't, and that's okay...but you're still wrong and you're still an idiot. The footage taken from Loose Change is actually from weeks later when the NTSB/FBI had already been on scene 24 hours a day.
  
  In all, I must say that I don't care one way or another about conspiracy theories. I will, however, say that when the theorists get in my face about something and just won't let it go when I ask that the subject be changed...that's unacceptable. At that point, you've crossed the line of being a zealot and I don't need to acknowledge you anymore.
- Augie1969, on 10/11/2007, -21/+11I know that there are many Schizophrenic tinfoilhatters out there ( I work with the community). However...
  
  Cognitive dissonance and 911:
  
  http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_628.shtml
  
  We have to accept what they tell us is the truth, the alternative would destroy our collective psychological thought process (everything our Fathers, Grandfathers, Brothers and Sisters have fought for):
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  
  /end of my ranting.
- MrFlesh, on 10/11/2007, -19/+41I lived in greensburg it's about 45 minutes west of somerset. The day of 9/11 we drove up to the crash site to see some carnage with in an hour of it happening. Didn't get to see anything cause we were order to turn around. Everyone up in that town said it was shot down that day. Debris doesn't spread over a three mile area when there is a plane crash. The only time depris is spread out is when it comes apart in the air. What would make flight 93 come apart in the air?
- Sep11insidejob, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19Just one guy: Nice try just picking one picture of that US Air Flight 427 crash site. Go view them all.
  http://images.google.ca/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=US+Air+Flight+427&spell=1
  
  Where are the visible plane parts here: http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg ?
- NipGrip, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16Detritus, by "Bush is running the show", did you mean Rove?
- siszam, on 10/11/2007, -14/+39Seeking the truth is not a conspiracy theory. Only the people who are dumb followers or have something to hide think it is.
- dani8559, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Thet actually did end up finding debris, just all over the place (not just the actual crash spot... or the one that was reported in this video)
  
  http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
- dani8559, on 10/11/2007, -18/+7Dear Kevin Rose,
  Please include the ability to delete comments. I did not click on that submit button twice, and have no idea how I double posted. Nor should i be able to double post within milliseconds, because that's highly indicative of spam.
  Thanks
  
  Please digg down.
- themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -12/+42The real flight 93 was flown to a secret scientific compound on an island in the middle of the Pacific where the survivors we're used in an experiment.
- WanderLink, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26@Eridanman
  So by your logic. If I were to set up a conspiracy and anyone tryed to call me out on it, they're just crazy simply BECAUSE it's a conspiracy they're tying to shed light on...even if it's true. You're an idiot. Conspiracies are everywhere in history. Watergate was a conspiracy. All the Mafias of the world are conspiratorial organizations. Operation Northwoods had the U.S. military planning attacks on it's own citizens to trick people into supporting a war against Cuba. Scientology bought it's way into government acceptance as a "religion". Conspiracies DO exist. To brush them off simply because they ARE conspiracies is insanely ignorant. Dissent is a good thing dumbass. And just because you can't see something doesn't make it false.
- tjmasco, on 10/11/2007, -7/+24there should be very little left in a crash like this one. If the plane crashed going horizontally then there would be tons of debri but if it crashes going vertically then nothing is left.
  
  I have an example of a perpendicular crash that proves that nothing would be left
  http://youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4
- laserdog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@augie1969 - "We have to accept what they tell us is the truth, the alternative would destroy our collective psychological thought process"
  
  Not sure if the point of your post is that society has embraced that fallacy.
  
  But on the off chance you thought it was a real argument:
  
  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
- beijingdave, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6EridanMan : "Dude... Conspiracy is like any other form of religion. The people who believe in it do so not because it is logical, but because believing in it makes them feel 'special' and 'powerful' in some way..."
  
  I've taken to believing in a conspiracy that Bush is getting information from aliens or time-travelers (whether real or hallucinationatory). It's the only way to rationalize such irrational behavior.
- tpodr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16@tjmasco,
  
  thanks...your clip settles this issue for me.
  
  There is no way in hell I am going to believe what anyone in the current administration tells me. Just because the official story of 9/11 says Flight 93 was destroyed on impact is never going to be good enough for me.
  
  Watching a clip of a 500 mph aircraft hit a solid wall and be atomized will convince me that a commercial aircraft making a more or less nose dive into the ground will in fact leave little debris.
  
  Sadly, my confidence in the veracity of official government statements is this poor. So thanks again for the clip.
- dantrenner, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Especially in a 20 X 10 foot hole!???
- Nameless1, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5The plane is a hollow tube of aluminum and carbon fiber (not sure bout that one) designed to be as light as possible while still serving its function. The pentagon meanwhile is a reinforced structure designed to take direct hits from explosives and remain standing. the plane got shredded instantly.
  
  You conspiracy theorists need to get a life. Bush doesn't want to be "EVIL", he just wants a bigger boat, a bigger house, and so on.
  He has made several poor choices through his presidency though.
- jwdav, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Aluminium has a failrly low vapor point, plus, 550 MPH = 800 feet/sec, which means for a 757's longest possible dimension, the tail came through where the nose used to be in under 200 milliseconds. If the plane hit on it's shortest dimansion, it's more like 25 milliseconds.
  
  Can you imagine the energy released by a 200,000 pound object travelling at 550 MPH (800 ft/second) when it stops dead in 25 milliseconds? Or in reverse, how about imagining accelerating a quarter of a million pounds to 550 MPH in 1/40th of a second.
- SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5"Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were not the heroes they were made out to be."
  How the ***** was Pat Tillman not the hero he was "made out to be"?
  The fact that he was hit by friendly fire in a firefight does nothing to change his heroism.
  
  edit: Meh, I think I knee-jerked when I wrote this. You were referring to the lies, not denigrating a great guy. Sorry. Digg down.
- insomn3ak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14@econoar (#6896586) said: "This footage was never seen again because the news crew was looking in the wrong area and this isn't even the direct crash site. I've read the story before. They pulled it because they didn't want to look foolish, that is all. Nothing "vaporized"."
  
  Then it doesn't make much sense as to why they already had statements from investigators (of which, there were apparently "hundreds of them out there") who found nothing larger than a phone book. If the news crew was looking in the wrong area...were the hundreds of investigators looking in the wrong area too?? It doesn't add up.
  
  Of all the video that I've seen of the crash site, the only thing I've ever seen is the big hole in the ground with lots little pieces of paper flying around. Come to think of it...I've never seen anything on fire in the flight 93 videos! That's very odd in my opinion...
- MrEguy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25@ EridanMan: Let's get this straight, okay? The government's explanation for what happened on 9/11 is BY DEFINITION a "conspiracy theory":
  
  Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour. Three concrete and steel buildings are pulverized and melted, crumbling into their own footprints at nearly free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics.
- MrEguy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19@ MrFlesh: Many of your neighbors in Pennsylvania agree with you.
  http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html
  [excerpt]
  "
  
  FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN
  
  Eyewitness Reports at Odds With Official Scenario
  
  rss202
  
  By Christopher Bollyn
  
  INDIAN LAKE, Pennsylvania—Eyewitness testimonies have generally been excluded from the official version of 9-11. In the Shanksville area, where many residents believe Flight 93 was shot down, there are scores of eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradict the government’s claim that courageous passengers fought hijackers, forcing the jetliner to crash rather than be flown into a building.
  
  Some local residents here are deeply offended by the official explanation of what supposedly happened to United Airlines Flight 93, calling it a patriotic pack of lies.
  
  Fearful of retribution from federal agents, many eyewitnesses who spoke with American Free Press asked that their names not be published.
  
  While differing on some details of the plane said to be Flight 93, which passed over Lambertsville, eyewitnesses agree that unexplained military aircraft were in the immediate vicinity when a huge explosive “fireball” occurred at the reclaimed coal mine near Shanksville."
- Augie1969, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I find it interesting that I return to find myself dugg down, I do, however, agree with the mathematical logic that Laserdog puts forth.
  
  Perhaps I got dugg down due to the fact that I stated what I did for a living, or maybe coming off as arrogant. I do truly believe that the current "war", and all that has followed is a sham, and that the administration in the US is playing head games with us. If the folks that decided to digg me down would take the time to read the articles Iinked to their extent, there might be a chance that they might change their minds.
  
  I know people that lost friends in NY, and it is difficult for them to accept alternatives as well.
  
  I am a little drunk right now, but I love all you guys, and enjoy the opportunity to express my POV, even when I get dugg down. '
  
  Peace oneday to you all, my bros and sis's.
- capriceclassic, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Why is Dukeeeey being Dugg down? This was amazing evidence you showed here. I can't believe that bandanna was that nice and even business cards and drivers license and letters were found in tact if it crashed. Totally planted. What a joke the Government story is.
- crazybugger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2hey tjmasco, it does not prove anything. your video only shows the crash. it does not show what happenes after the crash.
- PasteEater, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Conspiracy? Please. When is that last time you knew someone who could keep a secret for more than two weeks? Now, multiply that by a couple thousand, and you have the amount of people who would need to keep the charade going.
  
  There are just too many people who would have to be in on it. I'm not saying that I believe a word of what the media says (because really, what the government says is irrelevant... the *portions* of what they say that get reported does matter), but this is just too large to be kept under wraps for very long.
  
  Besides, why orchestrate such a big deal when you can do what you want anyway? Justification? Make it up. That's what the govt. has been doing anyway.
  
  Would anyone really be surprised if we invaded Indonesia tomorrow? And if you were surprised, what would it take for you to believe that it's justified? And then, how could you confirm the evidence?
  
  These are the problems we face when our Legislative branch is unwilling to enforce accountability, and the media is too ***** to actually do some investigative reporting.
- Infinite84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Detritus I love the way you contradict yourself. You go from saying there's no controlling cabal within the Bush administration to talk about Kristol & the Project for a New American Century right afterward.
- Kenelm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This footage has been seen again and again and again since it happened in many Europe countries. I saw it again two weeks ago in a documentary on French TV. No wonder why most Europeans think it was just a conspiracy...
- Detritus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Infinite84 although "contradiction" is a fair word to use here, it does not invalidate anything I have said. My statements were of facts as we know them, what you point out is an incongruity in the facts. To understand the truth it is an excercise for us, individually, to reconcile all of the facts and their inconsistencies.
  
  The Project for a New American Century could be seen as a cabal, but the limitation of their power is evident in their mismanagement of Iraq. Based on my own observations I tend to view it more as a philosophy that wishes it could be an effective cabal.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Brave people took on terrorists that day after receiving info of what was going on (info from cell calls mainly). Terrorists are not stupid. They knew what was happening in the plane (mutiny) and they took the plane down hard. The main crash site had plenty of debris, but you have to understand something: usually when a plane crashes, the pilot is struggling to make it less painful (trying to bring it in as smooth as possible). The terrorists were trying to smash that plane as hard as they could. They did.
  
  There are strange circumstances to every crash. Even car crashes. That is why they call them "accidents" and why many times people scratch their heads and say "how the hell did that happen".
- NakedTickBoy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@sep11insidejob
  
  Ummm, yeah, you completely nullified your point by only posting one picture of the crash site. . .
  
  You call the guy out for only posting one picture of the crash then you only post one picture yourself?, good job. *claps*
  
  Now you may ask why don't I just do a search on google?
  
  Because you are trying to prove a point, you need to supply us with the facts/evidence to the point you are making, by only posting one picture of the Flight 93 crash site you are therefore nullifying your point that he was lying/not providing all evidence when in fact you are not as well.
  
  Plus, I'm just lazy and don't feel like searching for pictures, for something that happened in the past.
- macmcrae, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1What I want to know is why do these conspiracy theories have such a huge following when noam chomsky believes the wtc and 93 were brought down by terrorists. He is normally the brain trust and the conspiracy theorist in chief when it comes to these types of stories. I would love to know what his disciples think about his stand on these issues. Seems like a large blow..
- Grego123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1econoar, dude you dont know why they never showed this footage again you are just assuming, come on show me the proper footage that fox news did want to show people.
- Sep11insidejob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Naked:
  
  http://images.google.ca/images?svnum=10&hl=en&gbv=2&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=flight+93+crash+pictures&btnG=Search+Images
- GenerousLinus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The people who compare flight 427 with this one crack me up. Look at the *****' pictures. Plane crashes (especially ones powerful enough to cause "vaporization") Cause something called FIRE DAMAGE. Huge *****' explosions and *****. Yet the 93 "crash site" is all green grass and white debris. Some people are retarded.
- brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"how does a plane vaporize?"
  
  It didnt vaporize, as is evident as you could clearly see pieces from the helicopter - it did, however, get pulverized into very small pieces.
  
  Normally when you see footage from a plane crash the pilots took all action possible to minimize or avoid impact altogether - however, this is a very unique crash site as the plane was deliberately nose-dived at speed directly into the ground - none of us has seen a crash site from such a deliverate act.
  
  As a result, the energy released from this crash is far more directed and powerful then a normal crash, and as such that released energy destroyed the plane much more efficiently then we are used to seeing.
- EridanMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ok, I'm late responding to my critics, but what the hell-
  
  As an engineer who lived in Arlington and happened to be visiting New York at the time of the attacks, I can tell you this:
  The collapse of the WTC towers was a direct result of their design simply not being able to withstand impacts on of the magnitude they experienced. Nothing about how they collapsed, from a structure engineering standpoint, was in any way odd.
  
  The damage to the Pentagon was, as well, consistent with an aircraft of 757 size striking the ground immediately in front of the building and burying itself within.
  
  As for flight 93. There is no secret, an intercept was ordered. Anyone who lives north-west of DC heard two sharp claps as two F-16's out of Andrews made a super-sonic intercept. The official record is that "Tally ho" was never called, and they never made visual contact with the aircraft. Is this true? I don't know... I know that if I was the pilot of that interceptor, The act of targeting and launching on a civilian aircraft is not something I would want the world to know I ever had to do. I also know that the impact occurred sufficiant distance from DC, that there would have been more than enough time for them to engage in a proper intercept and attempt to divert the aircraft before resorting to such extreme measures. Now, whether or not this is how it happened, I have no evidence, and no, I don't know.
  
  Now. NONE of this makes any attributions to the _cause_ of the events of that day. I also know that there is a not-secret authoritarian sect in the government who has shamelessly used the event to capitalize on people's irrational fear and subvert American Freedoms. Whether or not they orchestrated this tragedy _IS INDEED_ a very frightening possibility, and one that needs to be researched and considered passionately. These are dangerous times, and all possibilities WITHIN THE REALM OF RATIONALITY need to be considered.
  
  However.
  
  Going on and on with faulty rationale about clam-baked beliefs about the actual events of that day do _NOTHING_ to help the cause of those concerned about any nefarious nature of their intent. Peoples lack of understanding about structure design and physics DO NOT MAKE the rational outcomes of those engineering disciplines anything else. Your lack of understanding does not equate to new truth. Get over it. By obsessing over trivial, flawed aspects of 9/11, the entire conspiracy movement undermines the whole ***** point, and only serves to further shield those who might have had a hand in causing this tradgedy (or, if it was indeed as it was described, only emboldens those who might try something similar into the future - why should they worry about being exposed, when the majority of those who might expose them can't even grasp simple physics? see they're all idiots, nothing to see here, move along, move along...
  
  THAT is why I find all of this crap so distasteful.
  - baiyuan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0There is absolutely no question that the fall of WTCs 1, 2, and 7 were all controlled demolition. There are only a couple of hypotheses for people having your opinion at this point:
    1. Incapacity to see
    2. Incapacity to think
    3. Incapacity to face the facts
    
    Please see the DVD: 911 Eyewitness... There has not been made a better scientific analysis of these events. I feel sorry for all of you who are still deluded by the lies perpetrated in the media.
AbortionsTickle, on 10/11/2007, -33/+21At this point, the only thing going through my head is, "WTF."

Where did it go?

Why haven't we heard more of this?

What in the f**k happened?!?
- Phocion55, on 10/11/2007, -25/+10Agreed. Debris scattered over a four mile radius?
  
  How can you hear that and NOT think "Holy *****...that came apart in the sky"..................?
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -14/+48We HAVE heard about this. Lots of stuff to explain it. The wackos just like to ignore that, and the sheep like you just blindly accept it.
  
  The fact remains that this is 100/% consistent with a place than crashes full speed in a vertical dive. It does not happen very often, but when it oes, there is very little left.
- SuperCUBE, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Apparently this is the first time you have used the Internet. Welcome!
- mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Chomsky on the ***** that are conspiracy theories:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM
  
  I'm still amazed at the lack of intelligence among the conspiracy theories. I hate it when people who don't know basic science talk like they do.
  Go to any engineering or physics department and ask them what they think. I'm study physics and I know many engineers - we all find this so stupid and embarrassing.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4There seems to be a lot of confusion among the Faith Brigade and some of the more alert even, about what debris there actually was to be found. The simple fact, and I hereby illustrate it ad-nauseum, is that there was indeed debris, and it was spread over a large area, consistent with a shootdown. Search amongst these links and you will discover that given prevailing wind conditions, the papers could not have blown from the crash site to the location they were found. The size of a few of the pieces was far too great for them to have been flung the distance from the alleged crash site. The alleged crash site is not the centre of the debris field, which it should be, more or less, if the thing went straight down as claimed. This bit of video footage shows very little really. That is of course the problem. However concentrating on it while ignoring all the rest of the available information about flight 93 is counter intuitive.
  
  http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html
  
  >>>"A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair." 1
  
  Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area: "Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site." 2
  
  State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said.
  
  Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."
  
  "It appears to be the whole engine," he added.
  
  Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase." 3 >"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.
  
  By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.
  
  He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris. "
  
  Comment: If the debris was somewhat continuous, as you'd expect if the debris all originated at the main crash site, the FBI wouldn't have been skeptical, and wait over 24 hours until the next afternoon to check it out. It's only 2.5 miles away to the lake. But when they got there they rented boats and bagged up a bunch of debris.
  
  "Fleegle, marina owner Jim Brant and two of Brant's employees were among the dozens who witnessed the crash from Indian Lake. Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack.
  
  All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom," said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.
  
  Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. "It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake," she said. (archived at http://library.triblive.com - search Delasko from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01)
  
  Comment: If debris was simply dropped from 5,000 feet - it would take a couple minutes just to fall straight down on the lake. They hopped in their cars right away - and still saw the debris fall BEFORE they left.
  
  Witnesses say they heard the plane fly over, felt their building AT THE DOCK shake. The debris evidence also supports the plane flying over Indian Lake AND that plane was falling apart. This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater. The testimony and evidence do not support the NTSB story that the debris floated from the main crash site.
  
  In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues."
  http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
  
  Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."
  
  "It appears to be the whole engine," he added.
  
  Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."
  (archived at http://library.triblive.com - search whole engine from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here)
  
  Crowley related that 95 percent of the airplane had been recovered. The biggest piece of aircraft found was a fuselage skin measuring about 6 to 7 feet. The heaviest piece was from one of the engines and weighed 1,000 pounds.
  http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#final
  
  Comment: It's important to recall that every description of the main crash site is that the airplane was OBLITERATED. Very small debris was spread over a couple hundred yards. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when an Airliner impacts nearly vertically as Flight 93 did. Nothing survived this impact... yet a 1000lb fan was found elsewhere. It fell off before impact, just like Flight 587's engine that was found basically intact did.
- AbortionsTickle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Holy crap. I commented on this when there were NO comments yet, and then all of the sudden I get accused of being a sheep and a conspiracy theorist. F*** that.
  
  Immediately following posting that comment, I went and read what I could and realized that 'Hey. Maybe a huge f**king plane, crashing into the ground at a high speed wouldn't exactly end up with a few dings and such.'
  
  Thanks for being understanding and helping, and not at all judgmental and accusatory.
apachedisco, on 10/11/2007, -14/+87I live in East Greenville, PA. According to the lore here it was shot down. I can't prove it, but it's the hearsay from the local fire/police who were on radios and scanners.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26that still wouldn't explain the crater and minuscule debris.. according to the only person who captured a photograph at the moment it happened (civilian living close by) there was a large explosion like a bomb and she didn't even see or hear an airplane, only a large fireball.
  
  Just putting it out there.. I'm not sure what I personally believe.. there's no solid evidence to lead to any conclusion at all, I don't think we will ever know.
- jll3sonex, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8No confusion THAT morning, for sure...
- NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4In order for the damage to be as extensive as it was and create such a large debris field with such small pieces, the thing would have to be at something approaching cruise velocity directly into the ground. If you shoot down a jet, you've done some damage that disables it, thereby reducing it's ability to hit with the necessary impact to cause the kind of devastation discovered at the crash site.
  
  In other words, someone pushed forward on the yoke as far as it would go, keeping the engines where they need to be for sustained flight.
- mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0That's the problem with these people. They have NOTHING that passes as real evidence but they'll cite this kind of ***** as evidence.
  All you can take away from this, giving all the real physical evidence, is that there are people willing to believe in the fantastical.
- madk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You know what...If the plane was shot down, I think the majority of the American public would understand the sacrifice.
  
  Bah who knows?
sailyn, on 10/11/2007, -38/+11Why won't they just say it was shot down? It's pretty obvious.
- Andareed, on 10/11/2007, -15/+64It wouldn't be good policy to admit that the US government had shot down a civilian plane over US soil. It's also much more pleasant for families and people in general to think that those aboard the flight were heroes by forcing the plane down.
- gonegoogling, on 10/11/2007, -22/+6exactly, they start spewing the patriotic phrase "lets roll". thats not even what thay said, they said "lets roll it"
mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -18/+110Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, Flight 93,,,,,,all our great tales of war on terror heroism are sketchy as *****
- synaesthesia, on 10/11/2007, -11/+27Thats what sickens me. Terrorists crashing planes into buildings is one thing, I expect atrocities from terrorists. Our own government fabricating dodgy fairy tales to improve the morale of the American People on the other hand, thats not kosher. I dont buy a single 9/11 conspiracy theory, but the idea that Flight 93 was shot down seems less of a 'theory' and more of an unproven hypothesis.
- JOJOFACE, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Paul Bunyan is a very sketchy hero, imo.
- NakedTickBoy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Unfortunately, the media took part in deciding these "heroes," the media is twisting the meaning of the term hero. Then it is sad that these so-called heroes are not what they turned out to be or that the story was not how it was originally reported. The media likes to take/make famous people into heroes, just because Pat Tillman was an NFL player (mediocre player at best) he was called a hero because he died in combat, it's sad, don't get me wrong, but what about all the other "not-famous" people that die everyday, and I'm sure they were probably victims of the same thing that happened to Tillman.
  
  The media needs to slow the ***** down and start revising their facts before they report it and not apologizing for it later.
  
  If you want a TRUE HERO from the war, which his story you probably never heard, and see an example of what the media needs to start reporting from the war instead of death and mis-haps. Read this story http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/chontosh.asp
  
  Sadly, when I typed in his name in Google the first result was a Snopes article, how sad, people didn't even believe this story and had to submit it to Snopes, blame the media!
  
  I know how digg works, lol, and now that I posted this link to an article about the war and mass people dying there will probably be a discussion about how bad the war is, how bad bush is, how bad VIsta is and so forth, I have no opinions about those things and neither did I state my opinion on them just read the story in the link and read a true story about a real hero, and not totally drown the point I made with pro/anti - war,bush,apple,windows,etc. just read his stroy it deserves to be read and share it with others.
fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -22/+67Question:
Very few people deny that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were hijacked and then flown into the WTC buildings. So, if the government was capable and willing to hijack planes and use them to kill people, why in the world would they fake Flight 93's hijacking, instead of just hijacking it in the same way 11 and 175 were? Think about it. All of this "truther" evidence may look convincing at first glance, but when you think harder about it, it quite often becomes ludicrous.
- WhiteIce89, on 10/11/2007, -38/+12Or perhaps they'd be willing to conveniently shoot down a plane that was recovered by the passengers because that could expose the whole conspiracy..
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -18/+11That's an honest question and I think the answer is that they wanted a catastrophic event, characterized by multiple sub-events. That way there no one focused too much on any one thing. Remember that right after 9/11 came the anthrax attacks, and that is another layer to this rotten onion that has never been properly explained.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -6/+40@WhiteIce89
  All evidence from calls out of Flight 93 point towards the plane going down very shortly after the passengers stormed the cockpit. If the passengers had retaken the plane, there is no way the government would have been able to be alerted of the successful retaking and get a jet/SAM to shoot it down in such a short amount of time. In response to the inevitable speculation that the government had a jet following Flight 93 the whole time, both the plane and many radar stations on the ground would have noticed that jet, and you can bet that people would report a military jet following a airliner.
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Whitey..even your non-functioning brain has to realize how stupid that sounds. So, you are accepting that the plane was hijacked, that the passengers had regained control over the controls, and hterefoer were in some way going to be able to expose WHAT? Again, you are accepting of the hijacking.
  
  And thern there is hte ridiculous idea that they could regain control when all the hijackers had to do (and did) was to noe hte plane down.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3because the government says it was meant to hit the white house. I mean what else is there to hit in DC?
- KyleGoetz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@pureeviljester:
  What else is there to hit in DC? You're joking, right? Aside from many US landmarks (Jefferson, FDR, Lincoln, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam Memorials), there's also the Smithsonian Institute, the Library of Congress, the National Archives (which houses the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- you think destroying two symbols of capitalism was iconic? What about destroying the two most important documents in the history of the US?), there's also the CAPITOL BUILDING and the SUPREME COURT!
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A surprising number of people can't recognize the Supreme Court building from right in front of it, much less from the air.
  
  Try it out. Go look at the aerial images of DC on Google Maps or something. You can spot the Capitol because it's freakin' huge. You can spot the White House because it's in the middle of a giant green lawn. The Washington Monument is of course highly distinctive. But everything else just looks like a generic building from the air.
- mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0The main problem with the conspiracy theorist, is that they have nothing even close to consistent, non-contradictory theory on what happen. They just don't.
  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies
  
  Citing hearsay, pointing out meaningless coincidencies, adamantly omitting any contradictory evidence (never mind outright misrepreseting the data) is the basis of denying the 9/11 commission report.
  
  MADDOX:
  http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
  http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
cheddarbek, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Actually, this has been used, and seen. Just never on television. I've seen it a few places. namely that one documentary about how the entire 11 thing was a hoax, and I believe a bit of it is used in Fahrenheit 911 as well.
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13in other words, just the wacko sites.
Zique, on 10/11/2007, -4/+39"When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html
- jll3sonex, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20Dammit! How DARE you introduce truth into this!
smoothmedia, on 10/11/2007, -15/+41The plane slammed directly into the ground in a nosedive, we shouldn't expect to see much left of it.
- maehem, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7Large airplanes are not designed for aerobatics. If someone was fighting over the controls there is a good chance it flipped over or tried to fly in a way that caused a wing to snap off, creating a bigger debris field. Just a theory. I'll put my tinfoil hat back on now.
- shadowofapuddle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I can see the nosecone being crushed, but much of the impact would have been absorbed by the fuselage. The wings, engines and tail section would not have much impact after all of the energy is dispersed into the forward compartment of the plane.
  
  For it to be vaporized on impact, I would imagine you would need speeds several orders of magnitude faster than a plane flying at 10,000 feet could produce, and even then, you would have a monster crater.
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Come on, people. This is a simple math problem.
  
  Creating a crater is a matter of kinetic energy. An airplane is very, very light for its size. I mean, duh. It's gotta fly, you know? So an airplane moving at high speed will have less kinetic energy than you might suppose, simply because the plane is lighter than an object of that size would normally be.
  
  By the same token, planes are very delicate. They're not massively reinforced like buildings. They're built to hold up to the stresses of repeated take-offs and landings, but that's it. Making them any stronger would make them heavier, which would defeat the purpose.
  
  So fly a plane full-throttle into the ground and what do you get? A tiny hole (because the plane is big but not massive), a giant explosion (from both the combustion of the fuel and also the energy of the impact) and a widely scattered debris field (because planes disintegrate into small pieces that are thrown far by the explosion).
  
  The scene of the crash conforms very well to what you'd expect to see given the circumstances.
fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -6/+41Hole in the logic: if the plane was shot down and vaporized to such an extent that there were only tiny pieces left, what caused the massive drag marks and crater? And no, it wasn't another missile. Missiles create deep, circular craters, not elongated, shallow ones.
- rwiser, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Assume it was shot in the air. The plane dives, raining any debris from the initial explosion as it plunges downward (explaining the debris radius) After which it hits the ground leaving an extremely small impact area due to the nose dive. Of course the plane wasn't vaporized in the air. Someone fires a missile (probably whoever fired the first missile) to that location and vaporizes what's left making a small "crater". There you have drag marks and a "crater"
- JOJOFACE, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7@rwiser
  Why would they do that.
SeaMowse, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20I remember seeing on one of the many, many shows about 9/11, that a man did witness a plane flying very low and very fast in the vicinity. Also, the indentation made left by the impact of this plane looks to me to be that of a plane. I've even seen on one of the 9/11 specials - a superimposed image of a plane - the same size as Flight 93. The image fit perfectly to the impression left by the crash of Flight 93. The jet fuel is what caused the fact that there was almost nothing left of the plane or the survivors.
- yonman14, on 10/11/2007, -3/+56Survivors?
- rwiser, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8Except that in the live footage after the crash there is no fire, or even any smoke at all, anywhere at the scene. And if you say, well it all burned up in a few seconds, I direct you to Boeing's crash tests (just type in Boeing crash test in google video, and watch a Boeing plane blow up). Besides IF that were true, then the case should have been the same with the planes that hit the two towers (they should have burned up in a few minutes too). If that were true, then the only things on fire in the towers would have been office equipment and paper. And I'm quite sure that a piece of computer paper on fire wont melt super-strong steel. And lastly, if you say the initial fire ball sufficiently weakened the steel beams, I direct you to the search "melting point of steel" and "jet fuel". You'll notice the maximum burning temp of jet fuel is 980 Celsius (it was more likely around 550 Celsius, which is the open-air burning temp, AND the smoke from the towers was dark, characteristic of a low temperature fire). The MP of steel....roughly 1370 (quick search in google to find this). Therefore, even if you take the maximum temperature jet fuel could burn at, which is unlikely due to the color of the smoke, you still wouldn't come close to the melting point of steel. Finally, if you say the fires actually burned longer than a few seconds, you have to explain the lack of fire in the FIRST crash. I could go on and on
- neoquietus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@rwiser
  But you don't need to melt steel to cause a failure. Steel (like most materials) becomes weaker as it gets warmer. If the steel is under a load that is close to it's maximum rated load you only need to get that steel a little "hot" in order for it to fail completely.
  
  Imagine if instead of steel we were talking about wax. Wax becomes soft and mushy long before it actually melts. If you had a heavy book balanced on top of a pillar of wax and you started heating the pillar up the column would crumble and fail long before you actually melted any wax.
- tsmithkc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yes, at a 1370 C, steel does melt. It's a white-hot mass ready to weld together with a hammer blow or two at over a thousand degrees C. What will also cause structural failure is a low forging temperature under 600 C which gets you nice and red, and tempering temperatures, which relieve stresses in steel - making it less brittle but softer - at temperatures around 250C. You can easily temper steel in the cleaning cycle of your kitchen oven, no jet fuel required. If you did have a kerosene or oil burner, it's easy to build a forge that will weld quite nicely. Blacksmithing. It's a hobby.
- SeaMowse, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@yonman14 - YIKES! My bad. I meant 'passengers'. Thanks for pointing that out.
JrGhoull, on 10/11/2007, -5/+29i thought the official story was that all three planes were completely loaded with fuel which is why the 2 planes took out the towers so effectively and why flight 93 blew up into a million pieces after hitting the ground.
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -23/+3If the flight blew up when it hit the ground there would have been a bonfire of massive proportions burning when rescue personnel arrived. If that plane hit the ground that crater would have been 10X the size that it is. As far as we know a plane flew overhead and just dumped some rubble and spare machine parts out of it's cargo bay. I mean come on people a plane of that size traveling at 400mph crashing head long into the ground is going to leave a crater much larger than 10' x 20'. Seriously how did we let ourselves be so easily deceived by these madman who are running our nation?
  
  PS. They never recovered an engine or a single piece of human remains from this crash site. Plane engines do not disintegrate. They just simply don't. You would be hard pressed to find another piece of modern machinery that is designed to 1/10th the durability and strength of an airplane engine.
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13tripping...except the only problem with your comment is that it is all wrong. Planes have crashed in a nosedive before, and EVERY aspect is consistent. Not this huge bonfire. And not a crater 10x bigger.
  
  The funny thing is you have ZERO expertise, and you are give specifics like "The crater should be 10 times bigger" Please, give some facts to back that up. And no, 911isajoke.com is not a good source.
- ch33sehead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Where the ***** are you reading that they didn't recover an engine, Sherlock?
revolution1x, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Direct link to the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
- bouche, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1sry, great minds think alike.
bouche, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etruthera%2Ecom%2F2007%2F05%2F27%2Frare%2Dfootage%2Dof%2Dflight%2D93%2Dseen%2Don%2Dtv%2Donly%2Donce%2F
swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -11/+15A plane smashing into the ground at who-knows-who fast along with jet fuel explosion?

I'm surprised they found debris.
- kolanos, on 10/11/2007, -8/+11Are you suggesting that jet fuel can vaporize several tons of aluminum, including jet engines, not to mention several tons of cargo?
- swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7At about 800 miles per hour?
  
  Perhaps.
- Raidenwolf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0@kolanos
  Wait a second help me out. I thought that ground zero produced no significant body parts, out of a possible 3000. And basically the two towers vaporized, except for the north wall there was no 800 mile an hour crash.
  In a tornado a Pine Needle can split a pine tree. these are just extreme physics in action. But I agree the next available Plane of same class needs to be flown into the ground at 1000 mph so we can study the damage.
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No, I think he's suggesting that when a plane hits the ground at 600 miles an hour, things tend to break into very, very small pieces.
  
  Remember, in a "normal" plane crash, the plane is usually moving with some significant velocity in a direction other than straight down. If a plane crashes on take-off or landing, it doesn't so much crash as it does side-swipe the ground, with a vertical velocity of anywhere between a few dozen and a few hundred feet per second. But this plane was in a full-on nose dive, so the result was very different from a normal crash.
kelpee, on 10/11/2007, -11/+21You know I remember very clearly the morning everything happened. (I almost wrote "went down", but that's a really harsh pun.)
On CNN they said the plane had been shot down.
Now of course everyone was talking about everything going on, and I looked like an idiot saying that it was shot down because CNN never repeated that
they also never retracted it.
I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong or that I might have heard something incorrectly, but that morning I'm sure of what I heard.
I believe it was shot down. I believe that shooting it down was probably hushed up. I also believe that the American public at that time could not have taken the reality of having to shoot down a hyjacked plane.
- cheeseron, on 10/11/2007, -12/+15But the witnesses and the evidence seems to suggest that the plane was not shot down, you know.
- UnoriginalMind, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10@cheeseron (#6899768)
  Stop trying to put logic into this. Everyone knows that 9/11 has NOTHING to do with logic.
ninephoenixes, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2In b4 "wake up!" and "jet fuel doesn't have to melt steal to weaken it to the point of collapse."
- ninephoenixes, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Edit: *****
ai42, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12Why is it that conspiracy theorists think that the first details of the story are the most accurate. You know the news media could be in on this conspiracy and from the start be feeding lies too. And what I find the most curious is that if this whole thing is a conspiracy what makes you think Bush and his cronies could pull this off given their track record.
- ninephoenixes, on 10/11/2007, -8/+11Heh, yeah, it's funny when some conspiracy site.finds some clip of some outlet talking about something that obvioiusly didn't happen and harping on about it being a "smoking gun." The first hours of an event such as this are *always* the most chaotic. Reporters are chomping at the bit to get information out there as soon as possible, and they're just plain going to get ***** wrong amid the chaos. Especially when it's an event on the scale of 9/11.
  
  Remember when that plane crashed into that skyscraper last year and they at first said it was a helicopter? Yeah.
98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -6/+3I can't even get it. This page cannot be found.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2weird.. where do you live?
rabidjade, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Another one bites the dust, due to digg. hehe
ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16When most planes crash the pilots try to slow it down we all know the people flying that planes on that day weren't doing that.
450bigblock, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3This looks like every other news report i've seen about flight 93 since 9/11. There's nothing rare about it. I'd estimate i've seen footage of that field over a hundred times easily.
UntoTheBreach, on 10/11/2007, -19/+0Predictably, the video has been pulled.
- hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16No it hasn't. How would you expect to get away with that lie?
trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6I find it quite humorous the moment someone points out how strange this crash site looks they immediately get dugg down. Here's some photos of what a REAL plane crash site looks like.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/dfdr-cvr/MK747fhalifax_files/1052a.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/rob_rickards/images/crash2a.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/sacramento_dc8_feb1602_1.jpg

If you can find any similarities between this video and these pictures feel free to digg me down but I hope your eyes don't deceive you as well as your mind.
- jedikd, on 10/11/2007, -13/+10wow moron, were all these planes crashed at a high rate of speed nose first into the ground on purpose?
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19You're some airplane accident investigator are you? Look up the crash of flight 585 (a Boeing 737) in Colorado Springs in 1991. The crash site was similar in that you'd never have guessed an airliner just crashed there. There was little debris on the surface. Why? The thing nosedived into the ground, and with that much kinetic energy, disintegrated and buried itself. The site was surrounded by houses; no major fires. I remember all this from the news when it happened. It's not surprising to me in the least that an airliner can plummet into the ground in such a way that you'd see a very sparse crash site. That's exactly what happened in Colorado Springs.
  
  "There was no damage to structures on the ground. Trees adjacent to the impact crater were damaged by flying debris and soot, and nearby patches of grass north and northeast of the crater were scorched. The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep."
  
  That's from the NTSB crash investigation report...not some armchair crash expert speculation.
  
  http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/427-585.html
  http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2001/AAR0101.pdf
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4"hit 13 Sherwood Crescent at more than 500 mph and exploded, creating a crater (155 ft) long and with a volume of (730 yd³), vaporizing several houses and their foundations, and damaging 21 others so badly they had to be demolished."
  
  Why don't you read your own links before you spout off at the mouth. And watch the video again. They said there was a crater 10' x 20' in size, your own article claims that in a straight nose dive it left a 155 ft long crater that even in the picture appears to be FAR larger than the images in the video. Conveniently enough the site you posted also shows LARGE piece of debris scattered around the site. Oh and what's the 6th picture down.. that appears to be an aircraft engine, one of those things missing from the flight 93 crash site. Look the engine was durable enough it lodged itself in the road and it is still definable. I'm not trying to play the conspiracy nut card here but for god's sake look at the pictures even yourself posted. Those are horrible scenes of carnage, the flight 93 footage simply is not.
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7you COMPLETE dumbass you are looking at the section for Pam Am Flight 103. Look harder at that page and find the section for FLIGHT 585 you ***** idiot.
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3I'm not going to get in a ***** ball fight with you here pal. Look at the evidence you presented. Two big handfuls of realistic crash scenarios and a one in a million shot. I'm a gambling man, I won't bet on this nonsense. If this plane really was taken over by the passengers they wouldn't have nose dived straight into the ground. I for one would have been trying to save my life at that point not committing suicide and killing all the passengers involved.
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6>> I'm not going to get in a ***** ball fight with you here pal. Look at the evidence you presented.
  >>Two big handfuls of realistic crash scenarios and a one in a million shot. I'm a gambling man,
  >>I won't bet on this nonsense. If this plane really was taken over by the passengers they wouldn't
  >>have nose dived straight into the ground. I for one would have been trying to save my life at that
  >>point not committing suicide and killing all the passengers involved.
  
  Then you truly are ignorant. You say a crash site couldn't look like that. Fact is, it can. MOST airline crashes occur very close to either takeoff or landing and the impact angle is understandably shallow. There are few cases with a high impact angle. So, duh, you see a lot fewer of them than the others. Unless you've studied airline crashes (and, yes, I have), you are ***** stupid to say what CAN'T be possible.
  
  >>If this plane really was taken over by the passengers they wouldn't have nose dived straight into the ground.
  
  You don't have any goddamn idea what went on in the cockpit. What of those passengers had ANY idea of the flight controls of a plane like that? Who had control anyway? Or were they struggling all the way to the ground? It doesn't surprise me that it fell out of the sky like a ton of bricks. It would have surprised me if it didn't.
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Okay I'm going to bed but wrap your mind around this Steve
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2FB2Y1BQs0&mode=related&search=
  
  Listen carefully. Flight 93 says there is a bomb on board. ATC says that 93 just banked east. They mention Cleveland about 10 times. Emergency landing at Cleveland center. They also claim there is smoke coming out of the aircraft. Now listen to this.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWCIFmlSgg&mode=related&search=
  
  The only question I pose to you is if this plane was over Cleveland smoking consider that maybe it couldn't have made the trip to Pennsylvania. There is a news report claiming Flight 93 landed in Ohio due to a bomb being on board the plane. I couldn't make this ***** up if I tried. My crystal ball doesn't work I just pay attention.
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6>>Listen carefully. Flight 93 says there is a bomb on board.
  
  Yeah...you notice the voice is very arabic sounding? You suppose maybe the hijackers were, I don't know, LYING about a bomb? He also says "I'd like you all to remain seated" so the hijacker was trying to control the passengers and didn't even have the right radio switch on. Instead of talking to the cabin he was broadcasting externally. So does this prove there was a bomb on board?
  
  >>ATC says that 93 just banked east. They mention Cleveland about 10 times. Emergency landing at Cleveland center.
  
  What about Cleveland? 93's flight path went way out to Ohio before turning back east. What's your point about Cleveland? The words "emergency landing" do not occur anywhere in that recording. Perhaps I missing it.
  
  >>They also claim there is smoke coming out of the aircraft.
  
  No one said anything about smoke "coming out of the aircraft". I heard sightings of smoke in a general direction. Got no answer for you on the smoke. But if you're going to bet the farm on smoke, go for it. So what does smoke prove exactly? Is the only possible cause of smoke in that general direction Flight 93? Maybe it came from Flight 93, but there is nothing it that recording that is remotely credible evidence that it WAS from Flight 93. So smoke proves nothing.
  
  >> The only question I pose to you is if this plane was over Cleveland smoking consider that
  >>maybe it couldn't have made the trip to Pennsylvania. There is a news report claiming Flight 93
  >>landed in Ohio due to a bomb being on board the plane. I couldn't make this ***** up if I tried. My
  >>crystal ball doesn't work I just pay attention.
  
  Do you believe all the news reports that were flying around that morning were accurate? If I saw that correctly, that news report was posted before noon on 9/11. A lot of things were happening that morning and a lot of miscommunication was too.
  
  So you have Cleveland Center clearly in communication with flight 93, clearly hearing the claim of a bomb on board, then losing communications. Wouldn't it be understandable that Cleveland prepared the airport for a hijacked plane to land with a bomb on board? But did it ACTUALLY land? Wouldn't it be easy for rumors to fly around Cleveland that morning amidst preparations at the airport for a hijacked plane with a bomb on board to land. Are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for miscommunication to get around that morning that such a plane DID land? And yes they all knew the plane in question was Flight 93. The air traffic controllers where confused as hell. The military was confused as hell. But it's impossible for the Cleveland authorities and the news to be confused as this was unfolding?
  
  So if you have real evidence of Flight 93 ACTUALLY on the ground in Cleveland, that would be something. Where's the traffic control recording from the actual landing? That should be EASY to produce. Where are the interviews with the air traffic controllers that landed it? Where are the records of the SWAT team being detailed to the airport for a hijacked plane and actually engaging one on the ground? Where are the photographs of the plane on the tarmack? Where is the reporting of the handling of a hijacked plane and bomb disposal that morning in Cleveland? Where are the police records of that? Where is the reporting of a plane impact around Cleveland if it crashed there and didn't land? All you've presented so far is not much better than rumors passed along as fact on a very confusing morning. If this really happened there should be lots more corroborating evidence.
- johnsaulrubio, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1@ trippin:
  Yeah because the media is always right!
  
  And I'll bet you've personally spoken to those 12 lucky miners the media said were found alive.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300304.html
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4579484.stm
  
  Oh, our bad... They all turned out to be DEAD! And most of the MAJOR news outlets reported it INCORRECTLY!
  http://blogs.timesunion.com/editors/?m=200601&paged=2
  
  Now, imagine how accurate those same news outlets are when we have a rapidly-developing, horrifying, chaotic, national EMERGENCY on our hands.
  
  Wrap your mind around THAT one.
  
  But seriously, are you REALLY interested in the truth? Or are you merely interested in being RIGHT about some hair-brained hypothesis that defies all logic and actual scientific evidence?
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3trippin
  
  You refer to a recording claiming it as evidence about an "emergency landing at cleveland". Nothing about an emergency landing appears in that recording. So you are unconsciously fabricating evidence even as we speak.
  
  You also claim this recording as evidence that smoke was "coming out of the aircraft". There is nothing on that recording about smoke coming out of any aircraft. Again, you are unconsciously fabricating evidence.
  
  So I'm supposed to believe all this flimsy so-called "evidence" for a conspiracy when it is blatantly obvious that people like you literally hear what you want to hear?
- MrEguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ stevefl209: You may find this enlightening re- the emergency landing in Cleveland.
  
  http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/Cleveland_Airport_Mystery.html
- stevefl209, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3mreguy...I honestly am not sure which way you think I would be enlightened, but this article actually makes my case even stronger. This talks about Delta flight 1989 being landed and evacuated on suspicion of a bomb threat in Cleveland the morning of 9/11. Making it all the more plausible there were factual errors in reporting coming out of Cleveland dealing with both United 93 and Delta 1989 the same morning. This even makes the news report of a hijacked/bomb threat plane landing in Cleveland even more understandable. But try as I might, Delta 1989 is not United 93.
  
  At best this article circumstantially claims to prove that a second mystery aircraft was also landed in Cleveland. The proof of this is discrepancies in reporting of times, passenger counts, and aircraft locations. Relying on there being no factual errors in reporting, this article takes that as evidence for another aircraft. None of this proves or even suggests that aircraft was United 93. But going with the implication that it was....Delta 1989 carried 69 passengers. This mystery aircraft carried 200+ passengers. United 93 carried less than 40 passengers. So it couldn't possibly be United 93...unless you allow for factual errors in reporting. And if you do that, the entire article falls apart.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Your being dugg down for being a *****, and most of us cannot be bothered trying to explain anything to a willfully ignorant sack of slogans and delusions.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1OOPS, maybe I should have pointed out that my last comment was intended for
  trippinlikegod on 5/28/07
  
  ""I find it quite humorous the moment someone points out how strange this crash site looks they immediately get dugg down. ""
  
  Still learning how these forums work.
Tremblor, on 10/11/2007, -12/+26I've said it before: Conspiracy theorists are just as dumb as the people they rail against. "You sheep! you believe anything the MAN tells you!" yea, and you nitwit believe anything some 12yr old put on on his blog. I also love how they discount any evidence that goes against their theory, but you dare question the one frame of too-blurry-to-make-out-anything-other-than-a-gray-blob footage they wave around as "proof" and you're an idiot.
Rolling Stone did a great mock of these folks;
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/2

-edit-
I also see "predictably the video has been pulled"
yea, or Digg crashed the server. Oh wait, that has never happened ever, it must be the government. Ouch.
- jeff303, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3I'm not sure who is right, but I do know that the majority of responses to the "truthers" I see are unrestrained ad hominem attacks that don't attempt to discuss the actual IDEAS at all (your post included).
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4As our buddy steve demonstrates directly above us. Much easier to attack a person than an idea.
lopla, on 10/11/2007, -20/+13footage of the missile hitting the pentagon exists from all of the cameras close by (gas station for example), however moments after the missile hit the tapes were confiscated and hidden from the public. If there is nothing to hid then show us the tapes.

Thought so.
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -14/+10It's called an investigation. Oh,and our government isn't always logical. Absents of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- danarama, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10well I think it's time they proved their story. if video axisted of an actual plane hitting the Pentagon it would be tossed around like the WTC video. It's great proof and reason to get even more pissed at the so called terrorists. If it's there show the world, how can anyone argue against releasing evidence unless you have something to hide.
WestonP, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10As far as I can recall, when other planes have crashed, they've always found pretty good sized pieces of it. Why is this one different? And if it's just part of a well-planned government plot, why would their story have so many inconsistencies?

What bothers me about the whole 9/11 thing is that neither the government nor the conspiracy theoriests can come up with an explaination that holds water. I think the government is BS'ing us about something, and the conspiracy theory people are more interested in coming up with extravagant conspiracy theories than finding the truth. If it were all a government plot, I would think they would be able to come up with a better story and cover their bases a bit better. It kind of makes me think that whatever happened on 9/11 caught the government off-guard, and they don't want us to know the whole truth for some reason, so they scrambled to come up with an explaination for the public and that's why there are some holes in it.

Maybe in a few decades, the real truth will be exposed...
- jll3sonex, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6It depends on how the plane crashes. ValueJet 592 augered in, there were very few large pieces found.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
- samssf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2... Um, it depends on the mass of the plane and the angle and velocity at impact. You think every single plane crash is gonna look alike? Also note that in this crash, the pilots were not in control to manipulate the airplane as it was going down.
danarama, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Same deal with the Pentagon. No plane. People are talking about proving a conspiracy theory when the government can't even prove their official story.
AlexanderZero, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4The video asks "Did you see a Boeing?" But the passengers sure as hell got onto a Boeing before they left the airport. It can't really be argued that it wasn't a Boeing from the start.
- kolanos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Probably was a Boeing. Only the debris was scattered for nearly 8 miles.
  
  Does anyone really think Rumsfeld misspoke TWICE about Flight 93 being shot down?
- dbokan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Does anyone really think Rumsfeld misspoke TWICE about Flight 93 being shot down?"
  
  Yah, it's not like he's never made a fool of himself before...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDnJyc6-vo
kolanos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12I'm almost surprised the government didn't claim terrorists possessed a weapon that could vaporize a 737.
otep, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11

......Where are the Lone Gunmen when you need them??
Hiki, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1*whoops, forgot to click "reply," digg down*
Zgrendel, on 10/11/2007, -12/+59/11 Deniers, go to hell. No conspiracy.
abaddono1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5wrong hole in the ground, nothing to see here folk, just ill informed conspiracy nuts...
NipGrip, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Can someone explain how they got recordings of the cell phone calls from inside the plane? I've never heard an explanation for that. Do they record all cell phone calls?
- jll3sonex, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4You call 9/11, and it's automatically recorded. Lots of service centers record phone calls too, for 'customer service improvements'.
- danarama, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8there were supposed calls between family, but it's BS they made them.
- Tremblor, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4yes there were several, i remember hearing them on TV, i think most have stopped being bandied about out of some modicum of respect.
  
  And I know you didn't ask it, but yes cell phones work on planes, ask anyone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about. So there is another theorist story shot down (by the pentagon, with a cruise missle)
- WestonP, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Yeah, that is something I've been wondering about... How could someone place a cell phone call at the altitude and speed of a commercial jet? Regardless of any conspiracy theories, this is a legitimate question, and if it's possible, I'd be interested in learning about how it works. It's my understanding that it was a regular cell phone, rather than one of the pay-phones provided on the plane (which use technology suited for that altitude and speed).
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5It doesn't work, even the newest cell phones on the market have a maximum tower range of around 2 miles, commercial jets fly much higher. Cell phones were originally banned on airplanes because at low altitudes (during take offs/landings) you could jam up the cell networks by hitting too many towers at the same time. That's why you get the "Please makes sure all electronic devices are turned off" before you take off. They just very recently started installing long range equipment on planes so that passengers could make cell phone calls.
  
  http://www.aircell.com
- subman697, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Only a few of the calls were made by cell phone. the rest were made on the airplane phones. There are MANY studies showing cell phones work at altitude.
  
  You only hear the "they couldn't make cell phone calls on an airplane" red herring from the newbie's jumping into the whole truther movement. It has been so thoroughly debunked, the hard core people have moved on to other BS.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@ westonp
  ""Yeah, that is something I've been wondering about... How could someone place a cell phone call at the altitude and speed of a commercial jet?""
  
  You are now entering the exciting world of awareness, awakening. You need to understand that what you are saying is confirmed. Cell phone calls were impossible from commercial airliners at cruising altitude at the time. This has long since been 100% confirmed, despite the ignorant hollow denials of the faith brigade to this day. If you fail to find the proof, ask and it will be given. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact, it has been verified from every imaginable angle and is easily shown to be the case. W#hat you need to realise is that this FACT, which you have stumbled upon, minor and peripheral as it is compared to hundreds of others, is precisely what the Faith Brigade morons, call a conspiracy theory. Seriously, the fact that the cell phone calls were not possible, something which can be confirmed is precisely what the morons call conspiracy. Get used to it, the morons call everything they cannot face up to conspiracy,. Like us you will eventually learn to hold the creeps in contempt and opnce you realise they are actually, for all their screeching noise, a minority as well, you'll find like me they are useful idiots. They can be used as a foil to help spread truth, or they can be whipped with facts and rhetoric until their ears bleed and their heads explode, just for fun. Check out the links people are giving to the phone calls and think upon the following.
  
  Even if some of the calls can be proven to have been possible, does not prove they occurred. Even if we can show ONE of the alleged phone calls could not have happened, we have demolished the whole story. Unless the ***** want to suggest that some of the calls were faked, but others were genuine. Come along now *****, would you like to say as much?
AsSubtleAsABrik, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I don't see why there has to be conspiracy theories when it's perfectly believable that these people completely hate America.

If I was in Iraq, and one of America's missle's blew up a building by my house, and then debris flew in and killed my family, I'm pretty sure I'd hate America a lot. I'm not saying that has happened but you get the idea. I'm sure plenty of people in the Middle East have lost their families due to us.

One of the only thing that never gets coverage is the reason terrorists do the things they do. They're just "evil" and need to be killed. Maybe they just want us to leave them alone? We don't go their to help these people, we go there for their oil. If helping people was America's game plan we'd be doing a lot of other things and wouldn't just be in the Middle East.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2If hating America is to be the smoking gun, my little munchkin, then a very large portion of the world would be under suspicion. I am even pretty handy with explosives and I know a lot of Muslims. YET, I didn't do it.
ussliberty1967, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6Only idiots believe a missile hit the pentagon while unable to explain what happened to a plane full of people, only idiots believe flight 93 vanished, only idiots believe 19 foreigners armed with plastic sporks and box cutters could take out air marshals and 4 planes of Americans, only idiots discount the fact that Israeli Mossad agents were already in place on 9/11/01, filming and celebrating the towers getting hit from an ideal vantage point right across the river.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8)

(*Writer's note: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these "Arabs" were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not "sheikh uniforms")

"On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)""
HallEffected, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7It's only a coincidence that "Governor Tom Ridge" went on to become the first secretary of Homeland Security!
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I do not believe in co-incidences. Not once you get past the second in a row anyway.
  
  let's face it. The official explanation for the fact that 9/11 was able to happen as it did, is a profound and astonishing lack of competence by virtually everybody in a position of responsibility, yet nobody has ever even been berated for failure to perform on the day. Those most in line for responsibility on the day, those most to blame for this appaling and stupendous lack of competance, have ALL been promoted and given awards since. NOT ONE of these supposed total ***** has been reprimanded, demoted or censured. They have all been promoted.
  
  Of course, move along now, nothing to see here folks.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Of course if you cannot face the truth, the only thing is to DIGG this down. Trouble is, when down digging of a simple statement of relevant facts is the only response, you make your whole faith brigade movement look pathetic.
PIlotJLR, on 10/11/2007, -11/+30I am a professional pilot. I can assure you we do not "dump out fuel" once we know we're "going down." This isn't a Die Hard movie, folks.
The reality is a 757/767 cannot dump fuel. Except for heavies, most modern planes are not capable of dumping fuel, though this was common 20+ years ago.
Sorry, there's no conspiracy.
- NipGrip, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10So where's the fires from the fuel burning? And any larger pieces of wreckage? I know, I know, nothing to see here, move along folks.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I fail to see what implications the dumping of fuel has on anything. What are you talking about? Of course there is a conspiracy. It depends on which one you believe in. The official one fed to us intact after 24 hours or the one which has been formulated after consideration of ALL the known facts. Just because you are a Pilot doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about 9/11 than anyone else. However since you are one, would you care to offer an opinion on the ability of a bunch of novices who mostly failed to even fly single engined trainers managed the maneuvers which numerous professional and military pilots say is almost beyond the bounds of possibility let alone by inexperienced and unqualified pilots? The Pentagon descent patten interests me most, as it does a large number of other pilots. Furthermnore they appear to be pilots who have actually thought about things.
  
  I also present a grouyp of Pilots who seem to think otherwise to you. They are anything but ready to accept the thoroughly impossible official scenario. They are probably a lot more informed about 9/11, the known facts, which is why they have a differenet opinion about 9/11. I suggest you have a look and see if they might know something you do not. I for one am not excited about the idea of pilots flying planes with their heads firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine. Tell me why Pilots for 9/11 truth are wrong, and why you are right, or else rest assured your claim to fame is lame. You might be a pilot, but an ignorant and ill informed pilot is as useless as any other sheep brain when it comes down to it.
  
  There was a conspiracy fella, but the question is which one do you believe in, and WHY!
  
  http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
QstorM427, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Blame Freemasonry.
handler, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Every since that event happend, I always thought it was shot down by the government.
rac3r5, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10u know whats strange about that flight. When I first heard news about that flight, I heard that it was shot down by a jet or something. After a while, that story got changed to "it crashed". Seems a bit strange.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Me too, and I live in Oz.
bioskope, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9Blame Xenu
homercaholic18, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4This seems like a case for the Hardley Boys!
Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6The president can barely string a sentence together, yet people still think he and his administration were able to orchestrate one of the most planned and elaborate terrorist attacks in the history of the US. I'm not sure who's ignorance is greater, the president or the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
- danarama, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15well this ***** goes back decades. govrnments have been pulling phoney terrorist attacks forever.
  
  http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_Military_Wanted_to_Provoke_War_2
  
  Doesn't take a moron or even a single administration to think of this scheme.
- NipGrip, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Or yours? A good way to manipulate someone (or a group) is to give them the impression you have no ***** clue what you are doing while you rape them without them knowing it. I'd like to think he's but a puppethead playing a fool than actually fool that "can't put a sentence together" leading our nation.
- Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Don't get me wrong, he's a horrible president, but saying specifically that Bush and his administration orchestrated the whole thing with their bare hands is just ignorant. The attacks happened because of America's physical involvement in middle eastern politics. Period. Historians tell us this. The letter and videos issued by Bin Laden say this. The fired and resigned CIA members say this. The 9/11 commission report says this. The politicians who read said reports and watch said Bin Laden videos say this.
  
  Oh, but wait, Bin Laden and Bush are actually friends...ya that's right and the whole thing was fake and planned, sure. Then what's their motivation? What is the motivation in Bush orchestrating this? So he can start an unconstitutional war and get a 65-70% disapproval rating? Going down in history as one of the most hated presidents? Ya, that's some real motivation to orchestrating 9/11. My, what he gained.
  
  He's just a dumb president that made stupid and unforgivable mistakes. Same goes for his administration. He's not some evil mastermind behind 9/11, he's just a loser. An adult would realize this. Grow up and then come talk to me about this. Your irrational and frivolous stories, although entertaining in a hypothetical sense, bore me when we discuss reality.
- Rabbit63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Nobody is saying Bush did it or planned it. It was Jeb Bush in on the plans according to PNAC documents the faith brigade have never read. George is a sueful idiot. Allowed to touch only what he is told and basically told only what he needs to know. Cheney is the guy in the know, he alsmot did pull much of this off with his "bare hands and that is no theory, it is confirmed by the testimony of various people. I am sick of telling things to people when it is easily found on the net. You willfully ignorant faith brigaders have no interest in truth anyway. Yopu try to spoil discussion and bury information. That is the tactics of the fearful. Fearful of the truth. The truth is you are very ill informed, totally mind controlled little morons. The lowest common denominators, there is nobody dumber. You are that bottom 33% who still believe the most farcical lies, support the most gross people for the most utterly irrational stated reasons. You are the die hards, those who will follow Bush to the gallows if the world was a just place.
  
  When a Zogby Poll shows that the same number of people who still believe the official story, about 33%, also shows the same number never even heard of WTC-7 coming down the same day; the truth is as plain as day. Belief in the official story equates to ignorance of the facts of 9/11.
- Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@"Nobody is saying Bush did it or planned it."
  Yes, both posts that followed mine did and that was what I responded to.
  
  @"Cheney is the guy in the know, he almost did pull much of this off with his "bare hands and that is no theory, it is confirmed by the testimony of various people."
  You should be a journalist. Really you should.
  
  @"I am sick of telling things to people when it is easily found on the net."
  Lots of people "tell things" to people. Hitler "told things" to people. Where are these easily found articles? Seriously, show me. There should be more than one >credible< source if you want to form any concrete conclusion.
  
  @"Yopu try to spoil discussion and bury information. That is the tactics of the fearful. Fearful of the truth."
  Show me this enlightening and abundant information. So far you've only told us your opinion. That means jack ***** in reality. Sorry sweetie.
andy3109, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4The flashing light (explosion for tower) not being directly lined up with the planes nose is kind of odd. Although maybe not a missle...I would love to hear the explanation for that phenomena.
Suruxia, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Straight from youtube: " Category Howto & DIY "
MistySteele, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Um Ok, it's indeed completely reasonable that only little bits of the plane were left due to the high speed of the crash. However, it is not reasonable that the only mark on the ground is a small 15x20 foot hole. Compare to the flight 427 pic linked above. Flight 93 should have looked 427-ish. If the fuel or speed factors were the reason for the spread and small size of the debris, that's gotta leave a bigger mark.

At the same time, there are possible explanations that do not require elaborate conspiracy scenarios. On the face of it, it would seem that only part of the plane landed there and this was not the primary crash site (eg, maybe an engine as others have pointed out), or it broke up before hitting the ground. If there's a bigger hole somewhere else, then I vote for the first one, if not, the second seems likely and it is not unreasonable to suspect that it was shot down given the events of the day.

I don't put much faith in the on-the-scene reporting that day due to all the confusion. Multiple witnesses also heard announcements that the plane was shot down on emergency channel traffic, but it is unclear if this was also just confusion as well.

However, surely there was follow-up documentation of the crash scene included in published reports. Is there a nice, compiled set of official pictures of the crash site or crash area anywhere that anyone can link to? Thanks!
Idugdigg, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Comeon People get real an airplane is like a mobile home with wings. There is not going to be much left.
- danarama, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6well i'd be darned if i didn't crash my mobile home into the forest and there isn't a damn thing left except some random debree and a big hole.
- MrEguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5

Rare Footage of Flight 93 [Seen on TV Only Once]