can anyone comment on this re: flight 93?

[laruemtt]

i just got this from my sister that she received from another pro-official story person. she and i go back and forth with me believing MIHOP and her going with the official gov't story. i've always wondered why there is nothing but a crater at shanksville. is what this person sent her factual?

<SNIP>

They found a massive smoking crater (of which there are many
pictures), with millions of obliterated fragments buried in it.

This is consistent with a particular kind of impact: a nose first
dive into the ground, which would have the plane flying at around
Mach 1 on impact. Most commercial airplane crashes crudely glide to
the ground, which leaves the superstructure significantly intact.
Even if a plane has a catastrophic structural failure, like losing a
wing, they tend to have a relatively high drag that greatly reduces
terminal velocity and keeps major pieces intact. For a commercial
jet, someone would pretty much have to fly it into the ground to get
the result we see. Airplanes are structurally brittle and do not
survive high velocity impacts into hard targets very well at all,
having a strong tendency to shatter like an egg rather than bend like

sheet steel.

The lack of major pieces does not suggest a conspiracy, and actually
says a lot about the conditions under which the plane hit the
ground. The only pieces of significant size that might be found
under such conditions are engine parts.

<SNIP>

[MercutioATC]

1. I'm not a crash expert, but it sounds right to me.

That's been one of my points. The plane crashes we usually see involve a pilot attempting to land the plane with minimal damage (reducing speed, leveling the plane, etc). The 9/11 crashes were different in that they involved people who were TRYING to crash the plane.

[laruemtt]

2. that's the problem with

so many stories out there for those of us who are science and physics impaired. for me it's enough that bush et al ignored for eight months all the warnings they were given and the fact that bush sat there with his pet goat book while knowing we were under attack. guilty right there. bush says he hit the trifecta? i don't believe in coincidences.

the rest of it - whether the buildings were taken down with the help of explosives, whether it was flight 77 or a missile hit the pentagon, and whether or not flight 93 was shot down doesn't change the fact that they need to be tried and convicted of mass murder. the rest of it - i want to know the truth, just like anybody, but after having read half a dozen books on the subject and followed along in this forum, whatreallyhappened.com, 911truthout, etc., my poor brain is more confused. good luck to those of you who are forging on with good scientific minds, trying to get at the truth.

[MercutioATC]

3. I agree 100%.

The real issue is that our leaders didn't use due diligence to protect us. THAT'S cause for action regardless of the other (and less provable) details.

[laruemtt]

4. yeah. and we'd have less trouble

convincing the unconvinced if we stuck with that. not that i want to discourage anybody who continues to delve, and if they do find proof, i'll be among the first to congratulate them. but unfortunately a lot of the kool-aid drinkers like to jump on stuff like this and lump everything into one pile and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mirandapriestly]

8. Now, I agree with you on that.

The behavior of the bush administration on/after 9-11 is enough in and of itself to require an investigation.

[Old and In the Way]

5. I agree, it is frustrating.

In both cases (Pentagon and Shanksville)....if a group of 100 people happened on both scenes a minute after the event occurred with no prior knowledge of what occurred, how many would conclude that both were scenes of 757 plane crashes? Why aren't there significant, recognizable parts of planes at both locations, particularly the Pentagon site?

The fact that the Bush administration slow walked, underfunded and basically obstructed an immediate investigation adds fuel to that fire. Wouldn't you think that any President who was totally caught off guard and innocent would have demanded an investigation that would start the following day with every resource of the federal government available? I would. Given the Bush-Cheney track record and the fact that the primary actors got to choose the Commission heads (Lee Hamilton - Bush whitewasher extrodinaire / Tom Kean - Delta Oil and bin Moufaz business associate), I really don't think we've gotten the real facts of what happened on 9/11 exposed.

[kerry_s]

6. Even LIHOP is a treason

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"

[laruemtt]

7. AMEN! we've gotta get

the perps out of office and behind bars! this is an outrage.

[RayUbinger]

19. If you don't believe in coincidences, go after the Naudets too

How does a string of 63 SIMULTANEOUS coincidences strike you, for unbelievability regarding the Naudets' explanation for how they were able to film the FIRST Hit?
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged-04.htm


The MSM must be targeted too, for showing a cartoon and calling it UA175. Inspect
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/
to see that

the smoke trail doesn't move

the lick of flame in the building doesn't change

the left "wing" disappears behind a building which is itself BEHIND the "wing"

like a Flight Simulator model, the "plane" does not break or even crumple at all upon impact


THE HALF-TRUTH WILL NOT SET YOU FREE.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowlede.com

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Wouldn't the plane still have to be in one piece

when it hit the ground?

[MrSammo1]

9. The lack of major pieces does not suggest a conspiracy

It certainly does.

All crashes have one thing in common. All the non combustible material has to be there. As with the Pentagon, a lie was told.


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/

[MercutioATC]

10. Mass doesn't disappear, true.

...but it can be rendered into very small pieces. The lack of large pieces does not suggest a conspiracy.

[wildbilln864]

11. but...

wouldn't that also render the surrounding building materials into small pieces? Yet clearly in photos, we see metal wall studs, metal conduit and other things which would have been obliterated also.

Just my thoughts.

[MercutioATC]

12. Which crash are we talking about?

[MrSammo1]

13. The tail section

and engines are always found in a relative "whole" condition.

[file83]

14. Umm...where are you "sniping" this from? Provide a link, puh-lease.

[laruemtt]

17. sorry - just got back -

this is just something a person my sister corresponds with sent her when i asked her in an e-mail what happened to the wreckage from flight 93.

[jschurchin]

15. Oh man, I have some.....

issues with the terminology of this snip.

"They found a massive smoking crater (of which there are many
pictures), with millions of obliterated fragments buried in it."

Massive? Large, maybe, Massive, No not massive.

Millions of obliterated fragments? If something is obliterated it is gone, so I am guessing there are millions of non-existing fragments.


"This is consistent with a particular kind of impact: a nose first
dive into the ground, which would have the plane flying at around
Mach 1 on impact."

The top speed of a Boeing 757, at altitude, is 550 knots, about 600mph. Significantly less as it approaches the earth. It's airframe would not have been able to withstand Mach 1 as it descended. Mach 1 is 714 mph @ sea level.

"Airplanes are structurally brittle and do not
survive high velocity impacts into hard targets very well at all,
having a strong tendency to shatter like an egg rather than bend like
sheet steel."

Almost the exact opposite is true. Airplanes are a lot like a balloon, in there body's expand and contract as the cabin and cockpit are pressurized and depressurized during assent and descent. They are not brittle. It is true they don't survive impacts into hard object's, but not many things do.
If I was afraid of a airplane body shattering like an egg, I would never fly again because the jolt from landing......well you know.

"The lack of major pieces does not suggest a conspiracy, and actually
says a lot about the conditions under which the plane hit the
ground. The only pieces of significant size that might be found
under such conditions are engine parts."

This is the only paragraph that I do agree with. The lack of major pieces does not suggest a conspiracy, and it does say alot about the condition of the aircraft when it impacted the earth.

Whomever wrote this really needs to do a little more research with the available evidence, photographs/eyewitness testimony. They are giving their opinion, but I am not sure what they are basing it on.

Snips like this are why we need the release of the FBI/NTSB report of the crash of United Flight 93.

[RayUbinger]

18. No Wreckage means No Plane Crash

"Nothing but a hole in the ground," in a witness's words.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com