Flight 93 - Why such a bad conspiracy?

[Realityhack]

There is a VERY long thread here on flight 93 in which many people have claimed that there is not enough debris for a full size aircraft, that it would not have impeded itself in the ground, and that this is a dead giveaway that the entire crash was faked.

So let me ask this. Assuming that some group wanted to fake this crash (for the love of god please leave out who), and assuming for some inexplicable reason they decided not to do so by just crashing a jet there...

Why the hell would they leave less debris than expected? If they can pull off the cover up from DNA samples, to FDR, to the debris that was found, to the phone calls, etc. etc.

Why the hell wouldn't they plant most of a plane?

[LARED]

1. Gearing up for the preplanned war in Iraq and

Pakistan was expensive, funding was not yet available, so leaving out the most of fake plane was simply a cost saving measure.

This of course makes as much sense as the no-planers.

[Realityhack]

2. So...

they figured with the build up to war in Pakistan AA wouldn't notice an engine or two and part of a missing fuselage but a whole missing plane might set off alarm bells?

[SidDithers]

3. American Airlines is in on the conspiracy....

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

Sid

[Realityhack]

5. Which returns to the question...

why not scrap a whole plane and plant that.

[SidDithers]

6. Wel, AA was only willing to donate scrap plane parts...

an entire plane is expensive.

Sid

[Realityhack]

9. Well see that explains it Sid.

Now all is clear... or... something...

[SDuderstadt]

4. i'd respond to this, but...

i'm waiting to be the 33rd post.

[spooked911]

35. that's good

and you got #33 too. Fancy that.

[BooBluePotion]

7. A whole plane

would of course come with serial numbers forcing fema, fbi, cia or whoever to put these hubs back together. The family members of these dead passengers would of course sue the airlines for allowing 'terrorists' on to the planes with weapons. Seeing as how the family members are mute on this matter and so is our government then we have to expect conspiracy threads to thrive as long as these issues remain.

[Realityhack]

8. Serial numbers?

First off are you claiming no parts with serial numbers were found?

Secondly, if the conspirators are so powerful and wealthy... why not just take the plane they wanted to 'appear to crash' and swap it with another one so they could scrap the 'correct' plane and have all kinds of nice serial numbers that proved the plane crashed?

So why wouldn't they use the full plane?

[spooked911]

34. they wanted to achieve a cognitive dissonance by doing something so obviously fake

this is in fact, a common theme for 9/11

kind of an in-your-face "whatcha gonna do about it"?

it works really well when they control the media and the pols and have shills all over the internet

[William Seger]

56. Cognitive dissonance

Must be a clue there, alright. :eyes:

[Realityhack]

75. 'Cognitive Dissonance'

I did not expect you to be able to add to the list of technical terms you have demonstrated a misunderstanding of so easily Spooked.

Good work... or ummm... something.

[Realityhack]

10. OT - Looking at the rest of your post.

"A whole plane would of course come with serial numbers"
Assumes no serial numbers would be found on the partial plane. Also assumes serial numbers on a full plane would not match or could not be destroyed. No demonstrated basis for such assumptions.

"forcing fema, fbi, cia or whoever to put these hubs back together."
WTF do you mean by "hubs"? And what is with the listing of all those agencies? FEMA would do the reconstruction?

"The family members of these dead passengers would of course sue the airlines for allowing 'terrorists' on to the planes with weapons."
Not having serial numbers makes this impossible how? Oh that's right it doesn't.

"Seeing as how the family members are mute on this matter and so is our government then we have to expect conspiracy threads to thrive as long as these issues remain."
As long as WHAT issues remain?

[BooBluePotion]

12. Have you noticed anything wrong with the official story?

"A whole plane would of course come with serial numbers"
Assumes no serial numbers would be found on the partial plane. Also assumes serial numbers on a full plane would not match or could not be destroyed. No demonstrated basis for such assumptions.

No one knows what crashed in shanksville. The garbage found near the crater could come from a dump truck, hill billy party, planted by fbi agents, material used by the wargames played the morning of 9/11, boy scouts,

"forcing fema, fbi, cia or whoever to put these hubs back together."
WTF do you mean by "hubs"? And what is with the listing of all those agencies? FEMA would do the reconstruction?

I'm referring to the little pieces found as hub caps, and all of these agencies were involved in the planning of 9/11 I'm sure you've noticed by now there were people here in the US to film the attacks because of FOREKNOWLEDGE

"The family members of these dead passengers would of course sue the airlines for allowing 'terrorists' on to the planes with weapons."
Not having serial numbers makes this impossible how? Oh that's right it doesn't.

If the so called plane could be traced there would be no need for your thread. You don't here from these families because they don't exist

"Seeing as how the family members are mute on this matter and so is our government then we have to expect conspiracy threads to thrive as long as these issues remain."
As long as WHAT issues remain?

the unresolved issues dealing with the bush administrations foreknowledge, wargames, and made up DNA from phantom passengers

[Realityhack]

13. There is no rational answer for the argument...

that god exists because trees are green.

What you have said is not only not correct, it is so removed from reasonable thought that it isn't even incorrect.

[planeman]

53. there in no rational aurgument that a plane can travel at 580mph

and leave a little 20 foot crater.
what is the matter-i guess you are not used to people standing up to you on forums like this.

[William Seger]

57. 20 foot crater?

Where do you see a 20 foot crater?




From aerial photos, it's possible to estimate the size:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x137373#139734
(and the post immediately following it.)

There is no rational argument that the crater was 20 feet.

[planeman]

58. know your sources mr seagar

Eyewitnesses saw the Boeing 757-200 flying low and then suddenly falling from the sky, resulting in a huge fireball and a 10-by-20-foot crater
Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa. The Washington Post September 12, 2001

[William Seger]

59. Sources?

My sources are the photos from the scene. Having both eyes and a brain, I was able to work it out for myself.

[planeman]

63. LOL - so you deduce from atht foto that the crate is more than 20 foot

deep. LOL are you blind?

[William Seger]

69. Obviously, you didn't look at the photos in the link

... or did you look at them with your eyes closed? But even in the ones I posted directly, yes, I "deduce" that unless those are Lilliputians, the crater is much larger than 20 feet. However, no need to guess the size from those photos when reasonably accurate estimates can be made from the aerial photos I attempted to call to your attention. I'll save you the trouble of clicking. Here's an estimate based on nearby tire tracks:



Immediately to the right of the crater in the following photo, there is a thin line of trees on the near side of the road and there is a "notch" in the tree-line on the opposite side of the road, and the distance between those features is about the same (or slightly less than) the width of the crater:



Those features are still visible on the current Google Earth satellite image, so it's possible to estimate the distance. (I have drawn a line 115 feet long from the large tree at the apex of the tree-line notch; note that it falls slightly short of the thin line of trees):



This estimate indicates that the crater is at least 115 feet wide.

I really do think that before posting any more, you stop and consider the possibility that the reason your arguments keep getting blasted apart is that you are simply wrong. It happens; let it go.

[Matsuflex]

73. He meant depth, but I showed him that's not unusual

I showed him the crash of Flight 585 left about the same size crater with similar depth.

1.4 Other Damage
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 deep. http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf

[William Seger]

74. Ah, I see he did sneek in "deep" (after seeing the photos)

His original quote was "10-by-20-foot crater," and "truthers" (e.g. Spooked) usually take that as length and width. Actually, from photos taken from the side, I think the Shanksville crater was only about 10 to 12 feet deep. From the air, the crater is the same size and shape as a 757.

[planeman]

78. but flight 585 left far more debris-just thought i would remind people of that

[Realityhack]

83. You mean planes crashing into diffrent types of soil...

at different speeds, at different angles, in separate incidents look different after the fact?

Oh my gawds... I think you just proved chem trails exist and crop circles are real... or something.

[planeman]

85. dude- all our goverment has is a pathetic shallow crater where

an alledged boeing 757 crashed into at 600mph-

yet other plane crashes involving smaller planes and at lower speeds have produced larger craters.
go bury your head in that sand dude.if it makes you feel comfortable.

[Realityhack]

87. That is intellectually dishonest.

You have been shown similar crashes where the crater was of similar size. You have been shown debris.

And you have failed to provide any calculation to support your assertion that the crater should have been larger.

Thus your argument has no weight. If you could show with calculations that the crater should have been 80 feet deep or some such you might get people to listen at least long enough to review your calculations. But right now all we have is someone who has demonstrated a lack of understanding and ignorance of several subjects telling us that the crater should have been deeper 'because I said so'. That will not convince anyone who approaches problems from a rational viewpoint.

[planeman]

90. no mr reality- i showed bigger craters

are you honestly trying to say that these 2 craters are of similar size.

i think it is you who is being intellectually dishonest
crater for pan 103

ceater for fl93

[Realityhack]

93. The fact that some planes left deeper craters proves nothing.

You were shown that a similar size plane can leave a similar size crater.

Conditions differ from one crash to another. Expecting them to look the same is silly.

Your claim is that no plane crashed, proven by the depth of the crater. It is up to you to support that such a crash could not possibly leave that depth of crater in the specific conditions present. Outside of that all you have is hand waving.

[planeman]

77. LOL Mr Seagar all you had to do was impose a boeing 757 on it

to see how ridiculouse it looks.



BTW I based the 20 foot in terms of depth not width.

Dude you are way out there.

[Domenick]

11. it really dont take long to think of a list of possibilities for this seriously....

well a hundred tons of scrap isn't something you roll in with in the middle of the night and you can't really take weeks prepping the spot with a local business less than a 100 yards away.....

i could make more in detail lists of other possibilities but i don't see the point as i sincerely doubt your intentions are honest anyways.

[Realityhack]

14. Yet when those same points are made

regarding wiring the twin towers for CD people hand wave them away.

Besides, you couldn't pay off or threaten the locals? Seems if that crash site was a hoax you would need to do a lot more than that already so why stop at some random local business?

If they could sneak in and bury a couple of jet engines why not bring in more debris? After all if anonymous people on the internet who have never been to the crash site are going to notice the debris volume why not use more?

Of course my intentions are not 'honest'. I already excluded specifically a bunch of things in the OP that work against this preposterous idea that the PA crash site is a hoax. I am only examining one tiny isolated aspect.

[Matsuflex]

18. How do you CTs explain the engine in the ground?

If you CTs don't believe a plane crashed there, how and when did the NWO plant this engine without being noticed?

[Domenick]

19. oh gee i dont know how about.....

3:14 am on 9/12/2001 while the whole site was secured and locked down and under complete control of the fbi?

how about you explain why that rusty piece of an engine only made it about 5 feet into the ground while the contents of the tail of the plane which have way less mass and density penetrated a whole 25-30 feet further?

again it only takes seconds to think of many possibilities......

[Matsuflex]

21. So the bad guys dug up the ground in the middle of the night

and hauled that heavy engine in with their evil heavy equipment and plopped it in the ground and then used their heavy equipment to bury the engine with the dirt they just unearthed and then packed it all down so no one would noticed the following day when they dug it back out and they did this without any of the hundreds of crews who were camping out on the street right next to them? Think of that impossibility.

[Domenick]

22. no who said the whole was made in the middle of the night...?

that is nonsense.

how much do you propose that piece of the engine weighs....is it a whole engine?

[Matsuflex]

24. I'm asking how and when they planted that engine.

Since you think no plane crashed there. Please give a step by step procedure of how the bad guys planted that engine in the ground without being noticed.

[Domenick]

25. how much do you think that piece weighs?

its a simple question....

[Matsuflex]

30. It doesn't matter how much it weighs.

It does matter how and when you think the bad guys planted it without the good guys noticing. Still waiting for your step by step procedure on that.

[Domenick]

41. you were just arguing how hard it was to plant something so heavy and big....

what do you mean it dont matter how much it weighs?

tsk tsk.

[Matsuflex]

61. They had to haul it up with an excavator.

I would describe that engine as heavy. Do you think they could have carried that by hand? They would have to had planted that engine piece by heavy equipment like that excavator. Explain how they did that without being noticed.

[planeman]

55. so a heavy engine makes a small crater LOL do you know how ridiculouse

you sound.

[Matsuflex]

62. I never said the engine alone made that crater.

Don't be the fool.

[planeman]

64. the real question is how an engine of that size made such a small crater

[Matsuflex]

70. The whole plane made the crater just like Flight 585 did

Notice Flight 585 left a similar sized crater in the field it crashed into.

1.4 Other Damage
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 deep. http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR92-06.pdf

Some trees were broken at the Shanksville site, patches of the grass was scorched, and the crater dimensions were practically the same.

[planeman]

79. I have showed you fotos of that crash proving that it had more recognizable

debris than flight 93- jeez

[SDuderstadt]

23. I see....

so, the FBI had the whole place secured amd locked down. Tell me, how would the FBI controlled who was out and about at that time? Your premise is totally absurd.

I have another question for you. Do you rhiok when people become new FBI agents, are they asked, "Do you want to be part of the regular FBI or do you want to be part of the FBI that secures and locks down areas so we can plant plane parts there?".

[Domenick]

26. someone hit me with a brick......

1. so, the FBI had the whole place secured amd locked down.

2. Tell me, how would the FBI controlled who was out and about at that time? Your premise is totally absurd.



these are your first 2 sentences. the fact that you typed them one after another totally astonishes me.

do me a favor. next time the feds have secured an area go and try to just waltz right into the secured area. let me know how that works for you....

[SDuderstadt]

28. Try to think this through, Domenick....

your premise is so absurd, it does seem like someone hit you with a brick because, if you had any rational thought processes before, you certainly don't seem to have them now.

Think about why I posed the question. In the same way that those who claim that all the videos/pictures of the attacks on the WTC were faked fail because of a fatal flaw (can you see it, Domenick? Hint: how in the world would the "perps" possibly know about everyone filming that day? mThey wouldn't.), your claim is preposterous.

Similarly, your premise has flaws big enough to drive a truck through. So, let's assume the FBI did what you claimed. Wouldn't you think they wouldn't want to be seen doing so? Hence, my question. Since they couldn't possibly know who would be coming or going even that early in the morning, how would they have managed to accomplish this without someone see it? Why don't we have anyone coming forward and saying, "Hey...I saw that the FBI had this area cordoned off" or "I tried to go through this area and I was prevented from doing so by the FBI!".

Do you think the FBI could have accomplished this without heavy equipment? How much do you think that jet engine weighs, anyhow? You know, Domenick, it's goofy claims like yours that render the 9/11 "truth movement" a laughingstock. You might want to consider some classes in critical thinking.

[Domenick]

42. you dont think anything through apparently.....

where did i say they planted it there beforehand in the morning? i didn't.

flight 93 flew past that location and over and beyond indian lake.

the little white plane bombed a drainage ditch.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Wtf??

You realize you're making no sense, right? How in the world did the plane parts get there?

[planeman]

47. well witnesses did see a plane spraying debris at the time of the crash.

[jberryhill]

15. Because it is not possible to crash a plane

Planes can't fly at low altitudes or high speeds. In order to crash a plane it must hit the ground by passing through a low altitude at a high speed.

Based on what I learned in that thread, that can't happen.

[Realityhack]

16. Good job jberryhill...

not only did you get the bogus 'science' right you also managed to sound like you were answering my question while spouting a complete nonsequitor.

Bravo.

[planeman]

48. the only bogus science is believing a plane can impact at 600mph

and leave a 20 foot crater in the ground LOL!

[Matsuflex]

17. Any coincidence a CT sees, they try to make a home run

We should them other plane crashes into fields and high speeds that reduced the planes to small ruble. At Shanksville, the plane shot into the woods after crashing, taken out an entire section of forest. It's hard to see much of the debris because its mostly under the foliage of the forest. Some of the larger pieces that survived were photographed lying in the forest.




Most of the debris in the forest was quite a bit smaller.

[Matsuflex]

20. They also take things out of context, by claiming plane buried

That was the point of that long thread. They take a clip of a volunteer tour guide misspeaking and use that to build up the strawman argument that the government claimed 80% of Flight 93 was buried beneath the ground which is totally nonsense and that's the point of their strawman argument. They are trying to make it look like the government is giving absurd explanations to what happened so they can come in and knock them down.

[Domenick]

27. can you show where these large pieces of debris were recovered....??

i could very easily say they were recovered near indian lake or new baltimore and this proves the plane was shot down.....

i could say someone took those pictures in arlington and you can't prove they didn't.

so once again we are basing a few photographs and blind faith in the same people who told us saddam had ties to al qaeda and was hiding weapons of mass desctruction and the next smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud and its ok you can breathe the air at ground zero because there is nothing wrong with it. we're not going to use the patriot act against american citizens and we're not torturing people in secret cia prisons or non secret iraqi and cuban prisons. so trust us, we're not lying about 9/11 either. even if the commissioners say they were set up to fail and they could go down the line and name a hundred people who could be hanged for 9/11.

its over.

the plane did not crash in shanksville.

the fact that the indian lake witnesses exist prove this.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Prove that the witnesses saw what they claim they saw, Domenick...

It's funny how "truthers" will just nakedly assert,"Well, my evidence is legitimate, but yours has to have been faked". There's this neat little thing called an FOIA. You really should use it to vet things before you make such goofy claims.

[planeman]

51. witnesses saw a plane losing parts-something the official story fails

to recognize.
So maybe that plane sprayed "debris into the forest".
Sure sounds more reasonable than a plane exceeding its vmo or vdf but not breaking apart like official story claims.

[Matsuflex]

31. The were recovered in the forest.

That should be self evident. Do you think they were recovered out of the ground?

[Domenick]

43. what forest? the forest between indian lake and new baltimore?

you have no proof for the location of that debris.

it is called blind faith in the weapons of mass destruction saddam has ties to al qaeda crowd.

even the 9/11 commissioners say they were set up to fail.....

[SDuderstadt]

45. Do you even know who comprised the 1st responders to the site???

Did they all work for the feds?

[planeman]

52. 1st responder LOFL! who were quoted in a book released long after 911

Domonic spoke to the 1 st people who arrived on the scene. did you?

[planeman]

49. I see you ran to this thread seeing as you failed

to answer on the other thread.
The ensueing explosion would have redirected the debris of the plane in every direction - not just into the forest.
And the other links you gave of the canberra plane clearly show more of that plane being recovered than the plane of of fl93.

[Matsuflex]

72. Debris from the Canberra crash fanned out in direction of crash.

Most of Flight 93's debris bounced into the forest. That's why most of it is hard to see. How do you explain the section of forest that was taken out and the burning around it?

[spooked911]

32. you do realize the problem with the top two pieces of debris, right?

[SDuderstadt]

33. Jesus, Spooked....

what now?

[spooked911]

36. why bother telling you

it's not like your mind is open on this

[SDuderstadt]

38. Or, more likely, this is more of your bullshit, Spooked....

I dare you...tell us what's wrong with the 1st two pieces of debris.

[spooked911]

50. since you clearly aren't open-minded you are on this

I'm not going to bother

"more likely, this is more of your bullshit, Spooked"

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

60. i'll match my liberal credentials against yours...

anyday, pal. for the record, liberals embrace facts and reason - critical thinking, if you will - something you fail to do miserably. are you seriously implying that someone can only be a liberal if they embrace your goofy '' no-plane'' claptrap? really?

i hereby invoke the ''lared rule''...i don't reply to ''no-planers''...especially ones who have the temerity to question someone's liberal credentials simply because they dare to challenge your nonsense. bye.

[planeman]

66. Ill take you on any fucking time mate.

[SDuderstadt]

68. why don't you do a search for other posts...

in which i've called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of bush and cheney? is that liberal enough for you, sport?

[planeman]

76. not really. its empty rhetoric dude and you know it.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Bye, Planeman

You're not a serious debater.

"It's empty rhetoric and you know it"...LOLOLOLOL

[planeman]

84. its no great loss not to debate you mrstadt-bye

[Realityhack]

88. lol...

he thinks he won. *snicker*

[Matsuflex]

39. Pray tell.

And they after you tell me, show us where officials said most of the plane buried.

[spooked911]

37. this is really not the most important question to ask

the question is: does the official evidence-- the hole and amount of debris-- point to a Boeing 757 crashing there?

To me, it is very clearly no. The crater in particular, is ridiculous.

It's not always easy to figure out the motives of the PTB.

[Matsuflex]

40. Ridiculous like your challenge?

Still waiting for that official source the plane buried and not misspeak from a tour guide or an author's opinion of what happened.

[planeman]

46. no ridiculouse like saying soft ground is harder than conceter or steel lol!

[Matsuflex]

65. Just like a CT to twist what I said and didn't say.

I've never described the ground as soft. That is your description. I was making the point that a wall of a building that is only a couple feet thick is no match for the ground which is a couple miles thick.

[planeman]

67. actually it is fact regarding the aera that the ground was soft dirt.

And if it was soft dirt a lot more than 20 feet would have been displaced than 20 foot deep if a plane hitting at 600mph hit it.

[Matsuflex]

71. Agreed and that should prove to you the ground wasn't soft

so why do you keep bringing that up?

[planeman]

80. the shallowness of the crater means that the plane did hit it as hard as the goverment

would have us believe.comprende.

[Realityhack]

82. Please provide the calculation for that statement.

"if it was soft dirt a lot more than 20 feet would have been displaced than 20 foot deep if a plane hitting at 600mph hit it."
Evidence? Calculations?

Or just your personal assurances the same as you claimed a plane can't travel that fast?

[planeman]

86. please provide a calculation that it could be incorrect thank you

[Realityhack]

89. Sorry but no. The burden of proof is on you.

All kinds of evidence exists that this was a plane crash, generally matching the various reports. YOU made a positive claim that the crater from this type of jet crashing in this type of soil would be much larger. It is up to you to support your claim not me to refute it.

The only source we have for the claim that because of the size of the crater this can't possibly be a real crash site is your personal say so. Hardly compelling evidence. OTOH we have a similar crash with a similarly sized crater and lots of corroborating evidence that this was a plane crash.

[planeman]

91. no the burden of proof is on you to show how an object of considerable mass

flying at considerable speed can make such a small indentation in the ground.

[Realityhack]

92. Your misunderstanding of burden of proof is amazing. n/t

[achtung_circus]

94. Um

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

[Realityhack]

95. So much more eloquent than my post. Thanks. n/t