Does This Like the Crash of a Plane That Was Shot Down?

[spooked911]

One of the "milder" 9/11 conspiracy theories is that flight 93 was really shot down and that the government is lying about it.

Please give me your opinion: does this look like the crash of a plane that was shot down? Or does it look more like some sort of faked plane crash?

The long skinny marks going left to right are apparently where the wings went into the ground.

(Note, supposedly the plane both blew up spewing small plane debris and passenger remains all over the vicinity of the crash site AND the bulk of the plane supposedly went into this hole in the ground. There are no large pieces of plane anywhere on the ground. No tail, no wing pieces, no seats, no luggage, no bodies. The only large piece of the plane found outside of the crater was a large chunk of an engine roughly one quarter mile from this crater. Also note the plane supposedly came in from the bottom right of the picture, and the engine piece was found in the direction the plane was traveling off to the top left of the picture. At least according to one account, the plane was flying upside down when it crashed. You may be able to see a mark on the ground where the vertical stabilizer of the plane supposedly imprinted the ground on the lower edge of the crater.)

If this was shot down, how was it shot down to create this overall crash pattern?

[hack89]

1. Why don't you find some pictures of comparable crashes...

so we can compare - I don't have a lot of experience in crash investigations.

[spooked911]

2. Sorry, there is nothing comparable. You'll have to use some a priori

reasoning here.

[spooked911]

3. Picture isn't showing up on a mac. New try:

[spooked911]

4. This one seems to work on my mac.

[janedoe]

7. I can't see your picture. Perhaps it's this one?

[spooked911]

15. Dat's da one!

here's another:


or this one:

[janedoe]

17. Ahhh... so this is what a "scortched earth" policy looks like! ;-)

Curiously, the sides of the groove seem to have been there long enough to seed grass -- and the "crater-crash" is still smoking.

Cool pics!

[MrSammo1]

5. Just another govenment lie!

The Shanksville photos show the same problems as the Pentagon magic jet. The lack of physical evidence.

===============================================================
What luck for rulers that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
===============================================================

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Boeing could not gather enough physical evidence

from any of the 9-11 crashes to do a proper investigation.

Not only that, but they switched the investigation from their civilian division to their military division a day or two after the event.

[MrSammo1]

25. You can't do an investigation

If there is no jet to investigate!

[Make7]

6. The picture isn't working for me. I think...

that site is blocking links from DU. (Or DU is blocking it for them.) If you can't see the pic, copy and paste this address into a new blank browser window (or one that is not a DU page):

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/115/3864/400/flight%2093%20crater.jpg
____________________

At least I think that's what is happening - the picture won't work for me any other way. Does it work for anyone else?

-Make7

[LARED]

8. Is it possible to tell the difference

between a aircraft that was shot down and one that crashed for any other reason by looking at the hole in the ground?

I would think not, but I'm open to possibilities.

[StrafingMoose]

12. A plane that's been shot by a AA missile...

might leave debris on a longer surface, since it's basically broken ? After, that's why it falls, it's broken, somewhere. Now, I don't know what would an AA missile on a airliner look like though...

And I _really_ doubt it's been downed by 12.7mm machine guns hooked on the fighters or whatever the caliber (if it ever was shot down).

[hack89]

19. But how would it look any different from a plane

that fell apart due to high-g maneuvers that overstressed the airframe?

[StrafingMoose]

27. Breaks in two for example..

I've seen footage where the fighter plane is basicaly broke in two, so no high-g maneuvers anymore from that moment (both plane's part would looses their ability to fly). But of course, it might not look like this everytime...

[petgoat]

21. The book "True Lies" says there's no jet fuel in the water table, and

there was no fire. Which suggests that the fuel tanks were breached
while the plane was in the air.

[spooked911]

23. What is this book? Does it have more on 9/11?

I haven't heard of it, but that is very interesting info.

[petgoat]

24. "True Lies" is actually media criticism, written by the producers of

GNN TV. http://www.gnn.tv/

I haven't read all of it. One chapter, called "The Road to
Shanksville" recounts their own independent trip to the site of the
downing of flight 93. Another chapter is called "Selling September
11." The Forward was written by Greg Palast.

Important points from "Shanksville":

1. There was no fuel in the groundwater at the crash site, nor did
the crash set off a grass fire.

2. A MSM reporter from Philadelphia who did an independent
investigation explains the news media's hostility to the "shot down"
hypothesis by pointing out that they are so fond of the "let's roll"
story just the way it is that they don't want to see it challenged or
altered no matter what the facts are.

3. The writers interviewed someone who was reputed to have claimed he
saw the plane shot down but who, after spending all day with the FBI,
changed his story. In this interview the witness simply blandly
recounted the official story, with frequent breaks to have whispered
conversations with his wife.

[spooked911]

31. That all makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info.

[LARED]

26. No fire??

How does the author explain the burned out trees?



As for there not being jet fuel in the water table, it would only be meaningful if you know how deep the water table is? I don't know if it 5 or 500 feet below the surface, but if it is deeper than the crash depth then it tells us nothing about the crash.

[spooked911]

30. Yes, the trees caught fire. Yet oddly the ground next to the crash

site was barely singed. This suggests the trees caught fire from the explosion and not from burning jet fuel.

[Old and In the Way]

9. When was the picture taken?

This is another one of those crashes that one cannot rely on visual evidence, but must trust the words of this administration.

Were any pictures ever taken of the plane after it was taken out of the pit? Surely, the engines must have have survived in some kind of recognizable shape.

[spooked911]

13. Good question-- but no, they have never shown any of the pieces of

plane they supposedly took out of the hole.

Basically, the story of 9/11-- they never show any proof of anything.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Looks more like a missile crater to me

One of two possible missiles that were fired that AM. One that shot down Flight 93 over Indian Lake and one to create the crater to distract everyone from the real crash site.

[spooked911]

14. Quite possibly. What WAS that disturbance on Indian Lake if not

for the flight 93 crash?

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. This is only crash I've ever seen

that the debris field was in front of the crash site. Up to 8 miles in front of it.

[spooked911]

22. who is the "word warrior for truth" in your signature?

Also like your avatar a lot.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Gary Webb

He uncovered the CIA's/BushCo's involvement in the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80's. It's a subject near to my heart, since I saw this happen first hand in Miami. Part of my job at the time was to do home visits in places like Liberty City and Overtown. Reagan's War on Drugs was a War on the Ghetto and the effects were devastating.


Gary Webb, Word Warrior
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1774/


In regards to my avatar, DistressedAmerican created it.

[spooked911]

29. Cool. I have read some of Gary Webb's stuff.

Didn't know what he looked like.

[hack89]

18. OK - and just how big a warhead does an air to air missile have?

they are relatively small missiles with small warheads - an AIM 120 has a 45 pound warhead. It took a hell of a lot more than that to create that hole.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. I don't know

but it seems that even a small bomb can leave a very large hole under the right circumstance. Here's a few other examples of missile craters. Big hole, very little debris. Airplanes usually leave lots of debris.





Bomb crater - Iraq




Bomb Crater at the Gallon License Store. The track behind the crater leads off to the hospital which is located amongst the trees in the background of the photo.

[spooked911]

32. Possible shoot-down scenario:

the plane was going at a higher altitude (1000 feet?) than reported (100 feet) and was shot by a missile that blew off the front of the plane, immediately causing the plane to plummet head-first into the ground. It was reported that the front section of the plane was smashed on the ground while most of the rest of the plane went underground. This scenario might account for that. The wide-spread debris could be explained by the plane being smashed apart in mid-air. This could explain the pattern though it doesn't explain why not even the tail was visible at the crash site. Perhaps the tail section was blown off by a second missile? Then just the middle fuselage and wings would have created the crater. This is possible, and seems to be the only way a true shoot-down scenario could have gone. Certainly there are abundant rumors that there was a shootdown.

[janedoe]

33. How high was the Lockerbie plane flying?

How high was the Lockerbie plane flying, when it blew up? What was found on the ground could easily be recognized as airplane parts.

[Make7]

34. 31,000 feet ( n/t )

[spooked911]

35. Yup. But you know, the laws of mechanical physics changed on 9/11.

And plus, for some reason we are supposed to believe everything weird that the government says about that day, even when they contradict themselves.