Part II: ... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!

[John Doe II]

The crater:
After having analysed the eyewitness’ accounts of the last minutes of UA 93 in “…and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye” it’s time now to have a closer look at the crater.
I guess what most of us have seen of the crater are photos like this:


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/3.shtml

Unfortunately there are only a very few photos of the crater taken.
But maybe it could be interesting to have a look at the crater from the bird perspective!
There are only a handful on the net. Here you go:


(photo taken on September 22, 2001) (photo taken on September 22, 2001)

http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm



http://home.alamedanet.net/~vajra/sept11/UA93.htm


And here is a satellite perspective of the crash area.


http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm

Just take your time and try to figure out from which direction the plane crashed into this crater.

According to the official flight path UA 93 came from the west, northwest before crashing into the ground.

Now let’s have a look at the map:


http://wtc2001ny.tripod.com/shanksville-map.html
(Work by Zeitmaschine!)

Here we can clearly see what btw many eyewitnesses observed: the plane overflew the forest before crashing.
But I’m afraid it’s really hard to believe that a plane crossing the forest created the crater:
- There are no traces of UA 93’s wings cutting down trees. Maybe the mother of all walls exists. Maybe the Penta-Lawn exists but I really think we don’t need to discuss if the trees in Shanksville are airplane-resistant…
- Also the form of the crater does indicate in no way that a plane came from the direction of the trees. There are no traces of the crashing plane outside the crater one would expect in the case of a crash.
See for a comparison a picture of the crash of a Boeing 727 in Florida in July 2002:


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/fdx1478/2.shtml
(Thanks to Killtown!)

The only imaginable explanation why the crash of UA 93 didn’t leave any sort of traces like this is that the plane crashed at an angle of 90°. This will be discussed below.


Is it perhaps possible that the plane coming from the west overflew the forest and made a 90° turn so that at the very moment of the crash it was flying south?
Hardly possible. No eyewitness mentioned this behaviour. Moreover many eyewitnesses stated that the crash happened right after the plane had been covered by the trees from eye sight (see below).
And several eyewitnesses (Bob Blair, Nevil Lambert, Eric Peterson and Tim Thornsberg) observed that the plane rolled on its back while overflying the forest it is rather hard to see how the plane could have made a turn around in this condition.


Now let’s once again have a close look at the crater:
Check out this video:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/

Or simply have a look at this photo:


http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/new/1.htm



http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html


THE ANGLE:
At what angle has the plane that created this crater crashed into the ground?
It seems to be perfectly clear that the plane can only have crashed in an angle of 90°. As already mentioned above this seems to be also the only explanation to why the crashing plane left no traces outside the crater. It also seems to correspond to the theory of the “Joint Inquiry” and the “Independent Commission” that the hijackers decided to crash the plane into the ground on purpose.
Let me just point out here that this official explanation differs a lot from what actually family members and officials have heard on the CVR because none heard any decision of the hijackers to crash the plane. For details:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179

Eyewitnesses:
Now let’s listen to the eyewitnesses and see if it is theoretically possible that the plane that they saw from the west crashed at an angle of 90° into the ground!

First we’ll figure out the altitude of the plane when it crossed the forest:
Eric Peterson (Lambertsville, about two miles) saw the plane at 300 feet. (US World & News, 10/29/01)
Nevin Lambert (less than half mile) was afraid because “It looked like it was coming right to my house” (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/04) implying that the plane was very low.
And Lee Purbaugh being only 300 yards away from the crash site sees the plane at an altitude of 40 or 50 feet.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b; Independent, 8/13/02)
Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Wrong simulation:
Already here we see that eg the following simulation of the crash shown on German television is simply wrong:


http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html

First the altitude of the plane is simply wrong. Second a plane descending at an angle of approximately 45° would clearly have cut down trees with its wings and would have left traces from its approach before the crater.

The argument:
Just let’s assume for the sack of the argument that the plane was at the moment before heading down at an altitude of the very, very unrealistic 300 feet.
At this altitude the plane was still flying horizontally as eyewitnesses stated.
The official speed at the moment of the crash was 580 mph.
This would imply that the complete turn of the plane from the horizontal to the vertical took a third of a second.
Hmm.
So, maybe we should be more generous and not stick too much to the official speed:
If the plane flew 200 mph the nosediving to the complete 90° would have taken one second.
If the plane flew 400 mph it would have taken only half a second.

All in al I guess it’s rather fair to say that even with very conservative assumptions (altitude and speed) it is simply impossible that the plane would have made a turn downwards of 90°. And we didn’t even consider the momentum of the weight and the speed that would push the plane forward for a moment in the horizontal even if the pilot has gone for a nosedive. And we didn’t even talk of the length of the plane (155 feet) making it even more difficult that the nose of the plane managed the 90° turn before hitting the ground already (remember that the biggest piece in and around the crater was 2 feet long). And we didn’t even hint so far at the fact that the wings of the plane don’t point to the north and the south as one would expect of a plane approaching from the west but they point towards the forest (west) and the east.
Hmm and hmm again.


A last possible explanation?
There seems only one possible explanation to solve the problem we face with UA 93 descending from the west and the crater that couldn’t have been created by a plane coming from the west. But this solution contradicts the official flight path:

The U-turn: Maybe the plane from the west crossed the trees and passed the crash site and continued to fly east. Then it did a 180° turn and came back to the crash site from the east.

This assumption has several big problems:
- The observation of several eyewitnesses. They saw the plane crossing the trees and then “within seconds” it crashed or their description clearly implies that the crash happened right after the plane vanishing from view behind the trees. But a Boeing that would have made a complete 180°-turn as the explanation suggests would clearly have needed quite a bit of time (one minute?). It’s certainly rather save to believe that all theses eyewitnesses wouldn’t have mistaken something like a minute with “a second”.

Terry Butler: (Stoystown)
“He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees.”
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blur_in_the_sky__th.shtml

Rob Kimmel (Stoystown):
“Rob Kimmel, a truck driver, said he was in his garage in Stoystown when he saw the jet bank hard to the right, only 100 or 200 feet off the ground as it crested a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom," Mr. Kimmel said.
Within seconds , Mr. Butler and Mr. Kimmel said, they felt the concussion of the crash.”
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

Eric Peterson: (Lambertsville):
“The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.
Then Peterson said he saw a fireball , heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01)

Paula Pluta: (Lambertsville Road) :
“She said she went to her porch and saw the plane dip sharply at a 60 degree or 70 degree angle as it flew southward and fall to the earth behind a line of trees in this area of cornfields and rolling hills. A fireball ballooned as high as 100 feet above the tree line, she said.”
(New York Times, 9/12/01)

Bob Blair: (Stoystown):
“’I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,’ said Blair.”
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

- The absence of eyewitnesses east of the crash site. Not a single eyewitness saw the plane continuing its flight east after the crash site. In order to manage a complete 180° turn the Boeing certainly needed quite a while. And certainly a plane flying at an altitude of a few hundred feet would have stood out! In the west of the crash site we can easily track the flight path of UA 93 due to the accounts of many eyewitnesses but in the east we completely loose it!?
Only one eyewitness could maybe be presented to support the U-turn-theory:

- In order to manage to create a 90° angle at the crash site the plane must have gained quite an altitude. If it would have done so certainly all our eyewitnesses being west of the crash site would have seen the plane again when it came back after its U-turn and approaching the crash site. But there is not a single eyewitness.

- This theory would still not be able to explain the raining debris. If anybody wants to propose a shoot down as a logical explanation then the U-turn-theory gets even stranger. Not only would there have been a curious lack of eyewitnesses seeing the plane turning around 180° (having to fly all in all at least 17 miles after having crossed the crash site) but also nobody saw neither a second plane (even people seeing the white plane never mention having seen UA 93!) nor the shoot down.
But if a shoot down is unlikely then how can we account for the raining debris?
(In part I of “… and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye” it has been shown that the eyewitnesses and also the wind direction that could be seen on the video completely contradict the official explanation that the wind blew the debris on Indian Lake and till New Baltimore (eight miles away)).

But if the U-turn-theory is of no help explaining the crater how else can it be explained?
Can we assume another plane coming from the east crashing into the ground? Hardly. We would have the simple problem that the “wrong” plane is in the crater and we would need to explain how UA 93 could have completely vanished! And for achieving the 90° hit into the ground the plane would have needed a certain altitude and most likely would have been seen from the eyewitnesses from the west.
So apparently there simply is no explanation possible and I find it rather hard to believe tat all eyewitnesses didn’t say the truth (this is too much of a conspiracy for me and contrary to some officials the eyewitnesses don’t have a motive).
Therefore we can conclude:

Not only can we state that there was a strange encounter between the plane from the west and the white jet from the east at the moment of the crash but whatever has created the crater is not the same airplane that all the eyewitnesses have seen descending from the west. The crater can’t have been created by UA 93. And most likely no plane at all can have created this crater.

This surprising conclusion doesn’t contradict any eyewitness account of the crater btw. Not a single eyewitness was sure that there was a plane in the crater. On the contrary people said in disbelieve:

Homer Barron: " It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane”.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)

Carol Delano: “ If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated”.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.
(Cox, 9/12/01 b)

Lee Purbaugh: “There was nothing there. Everything was shredded.”
(Among the Heroes, 299)

Nick Tweardy: “ We couldn’t tell what we were looking at. There’s just a huge crater in the woods. ”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html

Nina Lensbouer: "But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)

Rick King: “ Never in my wildest dreams did I think half the plane was down there. ”
(Among the Heroes, 302)


And, well, have a look for yourself:


http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html

The only question remaining is:
If the plane from the west that officially is considered to have been UA 93 didn’t create the crater where did it go and what did create this crater instead?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. One of my theories since 9/11 has been

that the hijackers were determined not to be taken alive. When the passengers revolted, they set off the bombs they were carrying.

Of course, I don't know for sure, but it's a possibility.

[tngledwebb]

2. Read on.

There are other versions, some with much more substance.

[John Doe II]

4. West and East

In case there has been an explosion aboard UA 93 what many CTlers believe you have to see the following problem: Officiallt the UA 93 comes from the west seen by many eyewitnesses. There can't have been an explosion aboard this plane. No debris found on the flight path. On the contrary debris has been found in the east, southeast till New Baltimore (8 miles away). But UA 93 never flew over New Baltimore nor Indian Lake. So there is a problem. Sure an explosion could be responsible for the raining debris but the plane wouldn't be the plane from the west that is considered as UA 93.
For more details see the first part.

[Democrat Dragon]

5. Rummy's loose lizard lips said the plane was shot down

But looking at the crater tells another story. When I heard that the plane got disentegrated was when I started doubting it happened.

[MercutioATC]

6. Yes, he said the terrorists shot it down.

Here's the entire quote:

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."


Since he's clearly referencing terrorists and we can be relatively certain that terrorists didn't really shoot UAL93 down, isn't a slip of the tongue the most reasonable assumption?

[John Doe II]

7. "But"

Democrat Dragon writes:

But looking at the crater tells another story.

So he clearly marks that he doesn't believ the shoot down story because of the crater.
So, MercutioATC, what do you think about the presence of the white jet, the raining debris in the east that cannot be attributed to the crash and especially do you think UA 93 can have caused the crater. And if so, why?

[MercutioATC]

8. I was commenting on Rummy's statement, not the entire UAL93 issue.

I believe the "white plane" was the ExecJet (yes, I know, some woman claimes that it disn't have the same profile...however what she described doesn't fit the profile of ANY plane).

While I DO believe that it was UAL93 that went down in Pennsylvania, I'll admit that some of the evidence lends itself more to an expolsion than a crash. Some doesn't. To me, it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

[John Doe II]

9. Explosion

Problem is the explosion makes a lot of a difference. An explosion (see raining debris) could only have happened east of the crash site (over Indian Lake) but officially the plane never crossed Indian Lake. Moreover I would wonder then what the hell is the plane all the eyewitnesses do see west of the crash site following the official flight path of UA 93?? The same is evidence that against a simplist shoot down scenario.

And the white jet was present at the moment of the crash. Clearly the FBI does lie here right from the start. and concerning the debris the NTSB is lying right from the start. That makes a lot of difference. The offically acknowledged plane descending from the west cannnot have caused the crater. Or we have to consider that ALL eyewitnesses are telling lies ...

[Abe Linkman]

10. NO. Rumsfeld has made other, equally damaging CT claims

He said a missile struck the Pentagon.
He said the terrorists shot down UAL 93.

Who are YOU to call him a liar?

[MercutioATC]

11. I know Rumsfeld said that terrorists shot down UAL93.

That's what I said.....

:eyes:

[John Doe II]

3. Special Thanks

I forgot to thank especially people who worked closely with me on this topic: The Team 8+!

[John Doe II]

12. Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine

I also forgot to credit all the resarch and discussion with Zaphod 36 and Zeitmaschine.

And btw:
Certainly Rumsfeld's statement concerning the shoot down of UA 93 is interesting but should be discussed in its own thread.
Here I very much like to see if anybody is ready to challenge my thesis that UA 93 didn't crash in the crater.

[spooked911]

13. I exchanged messages w/ John Doe II, & I think he has something important

Initially found this post to be somewhat confusing, in terms of looking at the pictures. But I exchanged messages with John Doe II and he helped sort it out for me.

The forest is to the west and south of the impact area. The lake is to the east.

The important thing is that all the witnesses see the plane coming from the west, while the physical evidence all points to the plane coming from the east-- e.g. debris field. The thing about the debris field is if the plane disappeared into the hole completely, how could it have also exploded and left debris all over? Plus the idea that the plane completely went two hundred feet into the crater is hard to believe as well.

The official story just doesn't make sense.

The only thing I can figure is that either:

a) one "flight 93" plane came from the east, was shot by an interceptor, spread debris and made the crater, while another "flight 93" plane overflew the witnesses acting crazy but then kept on flying and landed somewhere else. This could account for the physical evidence.

b) after over-flying the witnesses, flight 93 kept flying and didn't crash. For some reason they staged a plane crash in the area-- spread debris, a plane engine and blew up the ground to make a crater. The white plane may have something to do with this. Why they would do this, I can't figure, but it makes more sense than the official story in terms of accounting for the physical evidence.

[spooked911]

14. Here are some of my exchanges with John Doe II

>Hi John Doe II--
>
>It's too late for me to go into real detail, but I re-read
>your piece with your added comments and I completely
>understand now. Something VERY strange happened there that
>doesn't add up.
>
>Basically all the physical evidence seems to point to the
>plane coming from the east, and all the witnesses talk about
>the plane coming from the west. So it is very odd, plus the
>hole doesn't make much sense.
>

Thanks a lot for your answer. I'm glad that for you too things are making sense now. I was more and more starting to wonder if I didn't miss something very obvious. Hopefully this is not the case.

>Two questions--
>
>1) are you completely sure about the directions of the lake,
>the forest and the witnesses? (if there is no doubt about the
>directions then you have something important.)

In the first part I have all the witness I could locate. They all talk of the forest. If you need more or the whole article plpease let me know.
On the montage of Zeitmaschine you can compare the photo with a map. Seeing the directions. You can also compare the used ap with maprequest. Indian Lake is east of the crash site.


>
>2) have you actually communicated with any of the witnesses,
>or is their testimony all from publications?


No, I haven't. But so far I felt no need as their accounts are very coherent. Only exception is Lee Purbaugh who is clearly lying. But this I'll summarize soon.

[spooked911]

15. Where is part one to this thread?

Is this it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=125&topic_id=21703&mesg_id=21703

[John Doe II]

17. No

It's this side:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x28985

And thanks for poiting out things that were not made clear in the original post!

[spooked911]

16. could you describe how you figured out where exactly the witnesses

were who saw the plane? Was it fairly easy and clear to figure this out, or did it involve some extrapolation?

[John Doe II]

18. Location

See above mentioned post.
In tried to read all accounts and find all eyewitnesses that spoke in public (help with Lexis-Nexis). In some accounts the location are given which of course is sometimes vague (Boswel) or sometimes more precise (Lambertville Road). Etc.
If you'd like to read any article used in its entire length I'm of course happy to pm it to you.

[Abe Linkman]

19. Soft ground wouldn't destroy the jet's engines. Where are they?

Absence of expected evidence, combined with no plausible explanation for why it's missing = no plane crash.

Thanks for your comprehensive research and logical presentation.

[John Doe II]

20. Thanks!

Yes, it was soft ground indeed and for the debris see the thread I'll open now. Btw I don't know but from my limited scientific background I woudln't neither expect a fire rising 200 feet into the sky if a plane crashes at 90° into the ground. But here I stress that I'm really not sure and happy to learn. This in any way doesn't change anything for the general problem where the plane came from that caused the crater.

[spooked911]

21. I have been thinking about this all day-- now my mind is stuck on it!

This post has a lot of info and subtleties and it took me a while to sort it out.

But what I am thinking is:

1) the "real" flight 93 ended up in that crater somehow (too many local people worked on the site to cover up a hoax)

2) the real oddity to me is how the plane could have disappeared into the crater AND exploded so massively at the same time. How could it have burrowed into the ground, leaving a plane-shaped scar AND also exploded spreading debris for miles? (this is sort of the opposite of what happened at the Pentagon-- where there was an explosion, a non-plane sized hole, and little debris outside the hole)

3) other considerations--
a) the flight may have come from a different direction (the debris trail 8 miles east of the crash) or
b) the flight had some damage before crashing (consistent with the Ed Felt call) or
c) the plane had some bomb on board that exploded upon impact (to account for the huge explosion)

4) there may have been another plane flying around that looked like flight 93 (to the west).

5) the crater has the wing marks going east to west, a skinny "tail" mark on the north end and a large gouge on the south-west of the crater (as best as I can tell from landmarks in the pictures). This would fit somewhat with the plane flying upside down from the north west (as goes the official version). But what made the huge gouge? The explosion? Why in that direction? Moreover, the gouge, if made by the explosion, is not really lined up well with the burned trees.

6) How did one very large and heavy piece of engine get blown off the wing so as to land several hundred feet away?

7) What angle did the plane hit the ground? I would say it had to hit at a 50-90 degree angle to make a crater like that-- but as John Doe II points out-- how did the plane manage that at the low altitude it was at before crashing?

8) If the plane burrowed into the ground, why didn't the ground soak up the explosion, or limit it more? Instead, there was a massive explosion if we are to believe the official version.

9) The crash scene is very confusing and doesn't make much sense without invoking one of the things I said in point 3.

[Last Lemming]

22. Don't forget

two planes landed in Cleveland although only one was officially acknowledged
Time in relation to these crash(es)?
Cleveland silent partner (airport security? American Airlines personel? Mayor Michael White?)

[John Doe II]

23. Wake up call to OCTlers!

Can anybody answer me please:

How i it only theoretically possible that the
plane coming from the west that officially is considered as UA 93 could have caused the crater?
Base your answers please on the altitude of the plane seen by the eyewitnesses, the crash site shown on the picture. If you can come up with a photo that shows a different crater then hey, I'm happy to consider it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. I have always stated

That the hijackers threw the aircraft into violent maneuvers to neutralize the passenger revolt. These maneuvers are what led to the aircraft s's demise. When 93 struck the ground it was at a sharp 90 degree bank, so it struck wing-tip first, then nose immediately after, at an equally steep rate of decent. The crash itself may or may not have been deliberate.

[John Doe II]

25. I believe

I refuted the possibility of a 90° crash. It simply contradicts ALL eyewitness reports. Everybody sees the plane flying at a very low altitude. An altitude that to me seems to make it physically impossible to crash at a 90° angle without the nose etc breaking apart and leaving considerable traces around the crater.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. Not at all

In a hard bank angle, an aircraft looses all lift except in a hard turn. If 93 was in a hard wing over, any rudder motion would put into a nearly 90 angle of dive, even at very low altitude.

[John Doe II]

31. Sorry but

please explain me how a plane (considering the speed of (80 mph can do a 90° pitch downwards at an altitude of 200 maximum 300 feet?? How does a plane that has almost 200 feet length not break its nose and leave considerable debris around the crater if it makes a 90° downard pitch?

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. Easy

when it is rolled on its side. Your thinking too 2-dimentionaly. When an aircraft is right side up any change in angle of attack must work against wing load, But when on it's side an aircraft looses all lift provided by the wings.

[John Doe II]

35. Easy?

Ok, Vincent, I leave aside that the Commission Report didn't mention any movement of the plane on its side neither does any eyewitness see that.
Nor do I insists that eyewitnesses see the plane crossing the forest at "treelevel", 100 feet or 200 feet. Let's assume for the sake of the argument the very conservative guess of 300 feet.
Can you please explain me how a plane being on its side manages a 90° turn within maximum 150 feet? And can you tell me how long this movement takes at a speed of 580 mph?

As I think too two-dimensional you have some explanation to do. Sorry, one sentence really doesn't suffice for this.
Thanks in advance.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. flight data recorder

Separately, the data recorder showed the plane's wings rocking violently as the jet flew too low and too fast for safe flight.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/attack/main567436.shtml

[John Doe II]

37. Rocking wings

is not the same as being completely on its side isn't it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. You assume a lot

"violently rocking wings" certainly can be. You are making quite a few concrete declarations based on very few facts.

The fact remains flight 93 certainly could have colided with the ground. :eyes:

[John Doe II]

40. Well,

I put all the available facts together and sorry rocking wings is certainly not being completely at the side. I'm afraid our eyewitness can clearly differentiate between rocking wings and being on the side.
I consider for the sake of the argument to use the most conservative estiamte of the altitude: you still haven't answered my two questions: how is a 90° pitch or turn around possible within 150 feet? How long does this movement take at 580 mph?

[Woody Box]

49. vincent vega

You are making quite a few concrete declarations based on very few facts.

No, you're wrong. John has proven that the shape of the crater is certainly not caused by the plane that was observed by the eyewitnesses. He doesn't declare more than that.

You are the one who establishes a "concrete" version of the last seconds of UA 93 which contradicts, by the way, all known physical laws as well as the statements of the eyewitnesses.

Sorry, for this you deserve a :spank:

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. thank you, may I have another.

JD hasn't proven anything, and if your post establishes anything, it's that you neither understand the definition of that word, nor "all known physical laws", AND the nature of ewitness testimony.

Thank god you folks arn't detectives.

[John Doe II]

56. Easy

Vincent, you claimed that it's easy for a Boeing at very low altitude to do a 90° pitch downwards but my two questions are still unanswered. May I repeat them:
Given the official speed of 580 mph at what altitude has the Boeing 757 to be at least in order to manage a 90° pitch downards?
How long does the whole turn take?

I say that the answer will contradict all eyewitnesses. You claim it doesn't. So please provide any answer to the question.

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. Easy

your question is irrelevant.

ONLY flight data would give the indication of the actual pitch, position of control surfaces, and air speed at the point of crash.

At this alleged speed, the human eye would have trouble distinguishing 90 degrees from 39 degrees, so that number is suspect, especially since an accurate "measurement" if you can call this testimony that, is highly dependent on distance from the crash, perspective from the flight path, and visibility all the way to the ground.

So unless you have access to that, you can't prove or disprove anything.

[spooked911]

58. Apart from the issue of whether a plane coming from the northwest made the

crater, what about the substantial debris found three miles east at Indian lake????

[John Doe II]

60. Yes, indeed

any OCTler has anything to say in order to show that the debris on Indian Lake could have been from UA 93 that is supposed to have crashed?
Welcome to the thread: The official UA 93 story is a big lie.

[John Doe II]

59. No envy to answer my question, Vincent?

My question is simple and clear.

So let me ask you for the third time:
Given the official speed of 580 mph at what altitude has the Boeing 757 to be at least in order to manage a 90° pitch downards?
How long does the whole turn take?

You can answer that!

and afterwards if the result clashes heavily with the eyewitness reports we can discuss them. But if you have a look the eyewitnesses are very close and with 300 feet altitude I chose a very conservative estimation ....

But I'm eager to hear your answer. You claimed it's easy for a plane at an altitude of 300 feet so surely you can answer this question, can't you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Pitch?

wings level? or at a 45 degree bank? Or a 90 degree bank? Are you certain 90 degrees or 89? And don't spout that crap again about "no one said anything about being on it's side", You've already proven you have a reading comprehesion issue*, so perhaps you need to take a look at your eyewitness testimony again.

*claiming that 3,000 lbs of mail was found miles from the crash site, when that was NOT what the article was saying at all.

[John Doe II]

63. Feel free

The plane flew horizontal and crashed at an 90° angle. Speed is clear. Now do your calculation and tell me the minimum altitude of the plane (position of the wings simply choose in your favour). So maybe you do answer my question when I've asked it the fourth time.


Btw the mail stuff. I've corrected this ages ago and since then you have failed to show ANY eyewitness that support the official wind theory. So, please you're welcome to enter the thread: The official UA 93 story is a big lie.

No, English ist not my first language.
Still, it's good enough to read altitude given by eyewitnesses. Feel free to correct me I've listed all eyewitnesses. In the two parts of this thread. But first I'm curious to hear your answer. Show me that it is even theoretically possible for a plane flying horizontally at 300 feet to crash at a 90° angle....

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. See post #64

"The plane flew horizontal and crashed at an 90° angle"

I doubt that very much. All your eyewitness testemony tends to say otherwise.

"position of the wings simply choose in your favour"

You realize of course that simply putting the nose over from horizontal is a HUGE difference than rolling semi-inverted and banking over don't you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. Is English your first language?

Or do you not know what Envy means?

[stickdog]

77. So why hasn't the flight data been released, vince?

Care to take a crack at that one?

[stickdog]

76. Pot meet kettle.

Your theory is based on nothing but your own wishful assumptions.

[John Doe II]

26. I believe

I refuted the possibility of a 90° crash. It simply contradicts ALL eyewitness reports. Everybody sees the plane flying at a very low altitude. An altitude that to me seems to make it physically impossible to crash at a 90° angle without the nose etc breaking apart and leaving considerable traces around the crater.

[gbwarming]

27. Hey John Doe, how tall are those trees, and how far from the crater?

Edit: oops sorry, not nt. Please measure to the tree line to the NW.

Also, what does the federal express plane (N497FE) crash have to do with flight 93? It slid over a thousand feet before coming to rest. It was on a landing approach, gear and flaps extended, below the papi when it started snagging treetops at something like 150kt. There's no reason to believe the two crash sites should look anything like each other.

Also btw, probably you knew this, but the black and white USGS photo is from 1994. The dark area in the red square is not the flight 93 crater.
http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=17&X=848&Y=5544&W=1

Why are some trees in the background of this photo broken?
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=94

[John Doe II]

28. Hy gbwarming!

Hard to measure thoses trees. Comparing them to the men in the front certainly the tress are higher than 30 or 40 feet. Btw this makes it even less likely that the trees were not crushed by the plane. The higher the trees are the more likely they wouold have been cut off.
And the photo you show: I think theses trees are burnt (as you can clearly see on the photos taken from an airplpane). Do you really believe this destruction is due to a 757???
The distance between trees and crash site. Well have a look again at the aerial photos: I guess something around 50 feet.

To the other crash site I've shown.
Of course I don't say that I expected the two crashs to have been similar. I just wanted to give an extreme example that one sees mark at a crash site that clearly indicate where the plane came from.
Seeing the photo of the crater: Can you tell me where the plane came from and if not Why.

The satellite photo: Where is the crash site located according to you?
And certainly it doesn't change anything about the simple fact that the trees are left and Indian Lake east of the crash site. That's the only thing that counts.

Please tell me then: How can a plane flying at a very low altitude over the trees crash into the crater and leave no traces around the crater and not crush the trees with its belly and its wings??

[gbwarming]

30. Some observations

In your original post you stated:

But I’m afraid it’s really hard to believe that a plane crossing the forest created the crater:
- There are no traces of UA 93’s wings cutting down trees. Maybe the mother of all walls exists. Maybe the Penta-Lawn exists but I really think we don’t need to discuss if the trees in Shanksville are airplane-resistant…
- Also the form of the crater does indicate in no way that a plane came from the direction of the trees. There are no traces of the crashing plane outside the crater one would expect in the case of a crash.
...
The only imaginable explanation why the crash of UA 93 didn’t leave any sort of traces like this is that the plane crashed at an angle of 90°. This will be discussed below.


Your own estimate of the tree height (30-40 feet) and crater distance (50 feet) allows a crash angle as low as 31 to 39 degrees without touching the trees. arctangent(tree height/crater distance) I think this kind of estimate is very hard to make, so of course that angle could be off by quite a bit, but really you cannot support your claim 90 degree claim. Notice in the tree photo that I posted the broken, unburned branch hanging in the large tree at the right. This might have been broken by the plane - I don't know.

I don't know to determine the direction of a crash from these small photos of the crater! How do you do it with such certainty?

The black and white photo (probably from an airplane rather than satellite) was taken in April 1994,more than seven years before 9/11. I agree that it is the right place, but just wanted to clarify the point that the dark thing which looks like a crater in that photo wasn't caused by flight 93.

[John Doe II]

32. Answers

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this: The satellite photo was not at all intended to show the crater but the location of the crash site in view of the forest. That's all.
Your calculation seems correct to me that it can have crashed at an angle of 31° to 39° but please explain me then why there is absolutely no trace in the soft ground that marks the direction of the plane crashing. On the aerial photos one can even see the marks of the wing (which strangely point to the north and the south so the plane must have even turned around). So why no traces at all around the crater? The photos even of September 22 show no traces. And if the plane would have crashed at this angle why is there no real debris at the crash site? Why didn't the nose break apart?

[spooked911]

50. Actually are you sure the wings went north to south?

From what I could tell, they were going more east to west-- that is the long wing-like impressions on either side of the crater seem to point east and west.

[John Doe II]

52. Ups

Absolutely!
Especially if the wings would have pointed to the north and the south it would have been what you expected but they point from west to east. Thanks for the correction!:)

[John Doe II]

33. Addendum

Concerning the trees. Please show me cut off trees of the length of about 160 feet?? (If the plane crashed being on the side then one wing would have crashed apart. Sorry but this really doesn't add up.

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. what do you mean by this?

"If the plane crashed being on the side then one wing would have crashed apart."

[John Doe II]

41. gbwarming

assumes an angle of 31° to 39°. So in that case the wing would have touched the ground.

[gbwarming]

42. No, I do not assume any particular angle...

I simply object to your assertion that the crash could only happen at an angle of 90 degrees because the trees were not damaged. Your distance estimates allow a 31 to 39 degree descent angle without touching the trees, and I showed a photo that might indicate some tree damage.

Your new assertion seems to be that if one wing struck the ground first it would have broken off and been found outside the main crater. I haven't seen any evidence that supports your claim.

I also think you are treating the witnesses estimate of altitude far too literally. People in general have no experience estimating the altitude of airplanes. The terrain around the site is also quite hilly varying from about 1700 feet to 2400feet with some peaks at 2700 feet. Sightings at 'treetop' are, I believe, essentially meaningless in absolute terms.

[John Doe II]

43. What I think

1. Can you please explain me how a Boeing 757 can crash into the crater by touching the trees and you don't see any traces on the aerial photos? And your photo btw indicates to me burnt trees (which you can perfectly see on the aerial photo). And sorry even if you find one tree that looks cut off we're talking about a Boeinig 757 ....

A wing touching the ground. And all you find are pieces big as a phone book and you don't see any traces around the crater???


Yes, I take the eyewitness seriously because their account is very coherent. And don't forget that I always took the most conservative estimation.

[gbwarming]

44. How's this?

Ok, This sketch shows an airplane rolled nearly 90 degrees from horizontal, descending as V.Vega describes, clipping a tree and crashing into a crater. In this scenario it doesn't skid along the ground and leave marks.

Edit: I'm not sure it clipped any trees. I think there is a broken branch in the one photo. The scenario works the same without trees.


Terry Butler: (Stoystown) "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." He said the plane banked to the right and appeared to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continued to turn to the right and then veered behind a ridge, "like somebody grabbed the wheel."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

Linda Shepley (Stoystown): “She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left , at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.”

Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry (Boswell): “Both men said the aircraft then dipped sharply to the left, then to the right ”.
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

Tim Thornsberg (nearby strip mine): “It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds … and then it kind of stalled and a nose dive over the trees.”
(WPXI Channel 11, 9/13/01)

Tom Fritz (Lambertsville Road): "When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden, like a stone".
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

Lee Purbaugh (300 yards): I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly , it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground.”
(Independent, 8/13/02)

An unnamed witness: “He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.”
(Cleveland Newschannel, 9/12/01)

Another unnamed witness: “She saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed.”
(Cleveland Newschannel, 9/12/01)

Edit: The red oval marks what I think may be a broken branch hanging in another tree. The yellow oval contains burned trees, of course, but they are all shorter and I think tapered in a way that might indicate that they've been broken off. Or perhaps it's just fire damage.

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. Good post

I guess that answers JD2's assertion that no witnesss testified to seeing "violent wing rocking".

As I have said: “He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.”

This may indicate the violent manuvers may have induced structual failure in the aircraft just before the crash.

[seatnineb]

46. No.

Sorry Vince..........

But with all due respect ........you were not there.....

This woman may have been 1 mile away.............but she was closer than you ever were......

Pluta said she ran out to her porch, looked up and saw the plane plummeting at an angle close to 90 degrees. "It looked like a silver bullet," she said.

There was no way anything was left," Pluta added. "There was just
charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn't slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down."
Paula Pluta.

I'll take her testimony over you..and Gbwarming........any time.......

[John Doe II]

53. Vincent

I never said that no eyewitness saw violent wing rocking. I said no eyewitness saw the plane being on its side in a sense of one wing up and one wing down. And just btw it's me who put all the eyewitness accounts together. See the first part of "...and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!"

And btw the Commission report doesn't mention the rocking wings just before the crash ... One more ommission in their text.

The bangs of the airplane are not only heard immediately before the crash.

The two unnamed eyewitnesses that talk of 90°. It's my style to include all eyewitness and not to censor them. Only then any discussion makes sense. But what I found strange about theses witnesses is that they don't talk about the crash itself. The disintegration of the plane. The flames 200 feet high etc. In general the crash site was covered from view by the trees.

But anyway:
Let's imagine it's 90° turn. Then please you still should answer my two questions. What altitude does a plane need in order to crash at a 90° into the ground given 580 mph and how long would the whole manouver take?

[seatnineb]

47. No way.

Butler and Shepley were 4 miles away from the crash site........to far for them to see which angle the plane was at when it plummetted down into the ground.

Peterson and Leventry were 8 miles away........far too far for them to see which angle the plane was at when it went into the ground.

As for Fritz and Thornberg.....they do not describe the angle of the plane(be it on it's side....or straight down) as it hits the ground.

Back to the drawing board for you and Vince...........

[gbwarming]

48. Perhaps I wasn't clear. We agree in this case.

I disagree with these assertions form the original post:

But I’m afraid it’s really hard to believe that a plane crossing the forest created the crater:
- There are no traces of UA 93’s wings cutting down trees. Maybe the mother of all walls exists. Maybe the Penta-Lawn exists but I really think we don’t need to discuss if the trees in Shanksville are airplane-resistant…
- Also the form of the crater does indicate in no way that a plane came from the direction of the trees. There are no traces of the crashing plane outside the crater one would expect in the case of a crash.

and

All in all I guess it’s rather fair to say that even with very conservative assumptions (altitude and speed) it is simply impossible that the plane would have made a turn downwards of 90°.

[John Doe II]

54. It's good to know

that you do read my orginial posts properly!
I very much appreciate that and here the discussion makes sense.
To your scenario:
I think we just assume for the sake of the argument that the plane didn't cut the trees. I see now what you mean in the photo but still find it very hard to believe that a wing of a Boeing only touched one tree gently. But as you said your general question is worth looking at without the assumption that this tree was broken by a Boeing:
I would like to ask two questions:
1. How come that the first wing hitting the ground didn't break apart? At the Pentagon this question is always answered by the newly renovated walls but here we're talking about soft ground.

2. The crater appears on all photos completely symmetrical. How do you explain that in view of your scenario?

[John Doe II]

72. gbwarming

What do you think about my two questions? Can a crash at an angle less than 90° explain the crater?

[spooked911]

51. Apart from the issue of whether a plane coming from the northwest made the

crater, what about the substantial debris found three miles east at Indian lake?

Any one care to explain that?

(personally, I think it is possible, but somewhat unlikely that the southeast flying plane, that all the witnesses saw flying crazily, created the crater)

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Quick analysis

“He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees.”

What else would you expect? Wen't below tree level, hit the ground.

“Rob Kimmel, a truck driver, said he was in his garage in Stoystown when he saw the jet bank hard to the right, only 100 or 200 feet off the ground as it crested a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom," Mr. Kimmel said.
Within seconds , Mr. Butler and Mr. Kimmel said, they felt the concussion of the crash.”

How would he see the top of the plane if it wasn't rolled almost inverted? ON ITS SIDE?!

The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.

Sounds pretty violent to me. I submit that it was rolling wing-over and not turning end-over-end, just used the wrong terminology.

She said she went to her porch and saw the plane dip sharply at a 60 degree or 70 degree angle as it flew southward and fall to the earth behind a line of trees in this area of cornfields and rolling hills. A fireball ballooned as high as 100 feet above the tree line, she said.”

Most likley refering to a wing dip of 90 or 70 degree angle.

“’I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,’ said Blair.”

UPSIDE DOWN! did you even read these? You have the nerve to try to diride my theory that the plane crashed in a wing-over bank, based on eyewitness testimony?!?!

[John Doe II]

67. Sure I did read them

I never claimed that the plane flew in the normal position concerning the wings. I only claimed that it was flying horizontally. As you believe the plane crashed at a 90° angle into the ground I still repeat my old question. I believe that the question if the plan was flying on its belly or with one wing downards or in its normal position doesn't change that it is highly questionable that on an altitude of 300 feet it can manage to crash at an angle of 90° when it had flown horizontally till then. Sure the position of the wings changes alot concerning the altitude that is needed to manage this manouver. That's why (especially as the eyewitnesses don't agree completely here) I told you to chose in your calculation the position of the wings that needs the lowest altitude the manage this manouver. So, once and again:
According to you:
Which altitude does the plane need to manage to crash at an 90° into the ground and how long does the whole manouvuer last?

[John Doe II]

71. Vincent

So, at what altitude does the plane have to fly in order to crash at a 90° angle and how long does this movement take at 580 mph?

[John Doe II]

74. Required altitude

As Vincent unfortunately hasn't come up with any calculation what altitude a Boeing would need in order to crash at an angle of 90° when it was flying horizontally beforehand I asked a very kind DU member (who btw I believe is clearly NOT MIHOP) if he could help me out as he obviously was much better in math than I am.

He came to the result that the plane would need an altitude of around 1950 feet.

Now, may i wonder if we can call 1950 feet a clear contridiction to the witnessed altitues that were all below 500 feet when the plane vanisehd behind the trees?
If somebody thinks he was wrong in his calculation then please simply come up with your calculation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. Roving Engine

CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

[John Doe II]

69. Mysterious engine

The engine was only found btw on September 12. Till today I still haven't found any photo of it. That's why I even opened a thread for this.

You write:
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling.

This is clear. The open field is EAST of the crash site. The plane officially came from the west. So everything is fine. (Can you just give me the source please)

But this is what I found:

While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the roughly 500 mph impact, they also said an engine -- or at least a 1,000-pound piece of one -- was found "a considerable distance" from the crater. Stuhl, the Shanksville mayor, said it was found in the woods just west of the crash.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/local/2001/11/15/SHOT15c.htm

In the woods. This is WEST of the crash site and on the flight path. Hm.
And if it really was on the open field: Why took it more than one day to find it?

[spooked911]

83. Is it possible this engine was never even found?

Is it just another 9/11 myth, like the reconstructed flight 77 the FBI has in a hangar somewhere?

[stickdog]

78. Your FACT is bullshit.

http://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html

As a state police fire marshal and criminal investigator, Trooper John F. Marshall has seen his share of gruesome crime scenes.

So, when many members of his troop in Uniontown were sent to neighboring Somerset County to help secure and investigate the Sept. 11 crash of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, the Greenville native didn't consider the assignment anything out of the ordinary.

For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts. "I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered.

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. Indian Lake

CLAIM: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.

[John Doe II]

70. Fact and Claims

Nowhere I claimed that Indian Lake is 6 miles away. But it is exactly (at least 1 1/2 miles away). That's where Indian Lake Marina is situated.
Concerning the human remains. Please check out the thread I've opened. I've put sources in there and please give me a source for your fact.
Moreover this still doesn't solve the problem that there is not a single eyewitness supporting the official version.

[stickdog]

80. Please cite another plane crash in which metal debris traveled

more than a mile.

[John Doe II]

73. Nobody

has explained the crater yet.
I believe that the plane that came in from the west and was seen by many witnesses can't have caused the crater.
Two explanations:
Vincent believes the plane could have crashed with a 90° angle. But he failed to conclude the minimum altitude the plane would have needed in order to succed a 90° turn. And how long this manouver would have taken given the official speed of 580 mph.
gbwarming believes the plane could have crashed at 31 or 39°. Yet he failed to explain how in that case the nose of the plane would not have fallen apart and bigger debris would have been found at the crash site. Nor why there is absolutely no trace in the ground of the crater that indicates the direction of the plane.
Therefore I'm still wondering how the hell the plane coming in from the west could have caused the crater. Any explanations?

[John Doe II]

75. The problem is very simple

The plane needed a certain altitude in order to do a complete 90° turn downwards (a kind DU member who is most likely a OCTler calculated for me that almost 2000 feet would have been necessary).
In any case one can easily agree that whatever altitude would have been necessary the plane and it's 90° downward turn would have been visible far far away and many eyewitnesses should have seen it. Should have seen a turn and a free fall of 2000 feet (or less if you like but still considerable). And no eyewitnesses sees that. In fact most witnesses see the plane crossing a treeline and vanishing behind.
So, given the eyewitness reports how can the plane have had the necessary altitude to manage the 90° turn?

[spooked911]

84. Indeed. I can't how such a crater would possibly be formed by a plane

traveling at a 45 degree angle.

[stickdog]

79. The mysterious crater of Flight 93

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-53041.html

[spooked911]

82. Excellent questions at that link

"10/08/01 -- REVISED SIZE OF CRATER IS NOW 45-50 FEET DEEP!!! THERE ARE 200 CLEAN UP WORKERS--ALMOST A MONTH LATER AFTER THE INITIAL 400 DID THEIR CLEAN UP THING, VAPORIZED VICTIMS.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134349512_tizon04.html

Search-and-rescue teams have gone over the crash site of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pa., numerous times already, of course, but investigators said a recent windstorm might have dislodged debris or exposed remains not found earlier. More than 200 workers from 13 counties were recruited for the effort. This field was owned by a local coal-mining company but rented out to a farmer who used it to grow oats. Oat stubble was all that met the Boeing 757 when it bore into the ground at 500 miles per hour, leaving a burned-out crater 45 feet deep. The only road to the site was barricaded and guarded by police and state troopers. It's considered a crime scene, and searchers were told not to talk publicly about what they were finding.

Many of the searchers stayed in the same hotel, the Ramada in Somerset, about 12 miles away. In the evenings, they filled the hotel bar. One night, in the lobby, a beefy guy in a baseball cap and T-shirt that read "Natural Bridge Fire & Rescue - Co. 11," spent 40 minutes on his cell phone, describing in detail what he'd done that day. He talked loud enough for anybody nearby to hear. He said groups were assigned to comb square sections of the field. He'd spent the entire morning and afternoon on his hands and knees, and found enough human remains to fill two plastic freezer bags. Most were bone fragments and pieces of skin and flesh. A couple of his colleagues found fingers and toes. One finger still wore a ring. He also found jewelry, purse items, paper and camera film, which will be sent to families when possible. The largest piece of debris found that day was 6 feet by 2 feet, some unidentified part of the plane. Most was the size of a quarter or smaller. Basically, the plane and the 44 people on board were "vaporized."


*******************************


So here is the question at hand:

Did 75%+ of the dirt displaced from this crater:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/features/terror/photo/sky/sky_zoom8.html
http://newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-wtc-pittsburgh.photo?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://sharinghislove.net/Flight93.html



which was formed by this explosion:
http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html


somehow miraculously fall right back into the tiny crater, covering the majority of a 757 with 30+ feet of dirt?

Or could it be that the crater was just a tiny smoking gash considering the FBI's explanation for the crash? And that's why they had to pretend that it was really 40 feet deep and that 30-32 feet of the rock and dirt--displaced by an explosion energetic enough to supposedly blast a 20 square foot piece of metal fuselage hundreds of yards away, a one ton plus piece of engine 600 yards away and charred, bolt-sized pieces of metal several miles away--somehow magically deposited itself right back into the crater in complete defiance of the most rudimentary physics of impact cratering.------------------------------------------------------------------------
93questions
08-16-2002, 01:39 PM
OK, 66 folks have now viewed this post. Doesn't anyone want to try to explain away the fact that this crater:





went from being 8-10 feet deep to being 45-50 feet deep?

Does it look like it collapsed on itself like a sandbox or a bowl of jello, or does it look like 8-12 feet was excavated by a high energy impact, as would be expected in any high energy impact?

Unfortunately almost every other picture of the crater was taken from a long distance and a shallow angle (and most after digging had begun), but just to give another idea of what a real crater formed by a real high energy impact (the wing of a 747) looks like see this picture of the crater formed by Pan Am Flight 103:



Note that the hole was excavated, the ground was hardened as it compacted, 90%+ of the excavated debris was sent flying, and precious little was buried.

Does anyone know of another example of an airplane in the entire history of air disasters that managed to bury part of itself 30+ feet below the 10 foot impact crater it formed?"

[Dancing_Dave]

81. Good work, man!

Yes indeed, everytime a really a INDEPENDENT and properly critical investigation is done, the official 9/11 myth turns out to be one big lie!

The U.S. corporate "news" propaganda media were totally wrong when they blithely presumed that people wouldn't be interested in the truth and couldn't handle it anyway. Their credibility will never recover from their total and abject failure to persue any real independent investigation of 9/11. An entirely different era of more diversified information sources is arising from their total failure on this one key historical issue.



:yourock: