The link below references Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, leaving a trail of parts and debris 5 MILES LONG. How is this so? You shoot down a plane (like 93 was), and I could see how debris would be strewn 5 miles. But the "official" BS story claims it was all in the deep soft hole (except for the engine that apparently bounced over the trees a couple of football fields away). Question: How would debris be spread over 5 miles, unless it was shot down? http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp A piece from above link: United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200 en route from New Jersey to San Francisco, fell from the sky near Shanksville at 10:06 a.m., about two hours after it took off, leaving a trail of debris five miles long.
Easily.....the debris field was NOT '5 miles long'........light debris,paper and insulation did land in Indian lake,just over a mile awy...
I never said it was a 'lie',don't presume to put words in my mouth....the story was written 9/12/2001, when everything was 'up in the air' so to speak...the initial report was wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BouDNRfX-o
The five mile claim is absolutely wrong. Debris was found eight miles away. Of course it was lightweight material easily blown on the wind. Nor is it unheard of for such a large debris field. PSA Flight 1771 had a similar crash and a similarly sized debris field. Of course this was well before 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4 3:55 is where the sheriff talks about the debris field.
The link says nothing about people witnessing a shoot down. By the way, how does this particular theory coexist with your other theory that the planes were all remote controlled?
Another misleading thread title by RWF. 93 shot down as witnesses attest to Nowhere in your linked article does it say that witnesses attest to 93 being shot down. From your link. Please show me a quote in the article where a witness claims the plane was shot down. Just another example of truther quote mining attempting to fool people who won't read for themselves. And by the way "fell from the sky" does not mean shot down.
In the face of what is considered to be the biggest intelligence/military failure in the history of our country, why would the powers that be lie about something that would have been a rare example, on that day, of the system working?
Rummy actually did try to take credit for having shot it down. The subsequent actions of the merry morons suggest that they wanted the American public to think that they needed a hard-line, aggressive government to protect them from an enemy that could be anywhere, at any time. The last thing they needed was a group of ordinary citizens rallying spontaneously to their own defense against insurmountable odds. If they had shot it down, they would have trumpeted the fact all over the world.
Here is another crash that didn't happen. I can't see large plane parts, so this is all a coverup by..... um...... someone. Obviously the plane was shot down or planted there or any one of a number of silly theories, but one thing we know for SURE is that no plane crashed there!
Well, 7+1+1 = 9. I mean, c'mon, the only logical conclusion is that it's some kind of code. Definitely incriminating. As for the script . . . That was GREAT!! And would probably be accepted as gospel over at the Lets Roll forums.
Well, I have reason to suspect that the makers of the television hit 24 were in on the conspiracy, and if so, maybe there are other scripts out there...
You better take a look at the photos of the excavation of the buried engine. You can see that the soil is sliding back down into the trench. It is more important to remember here that a heavy object, going fast enoguh, at the proper angle, will even bounce on water. The engines were not oriented the same way to the ground when the plane hit, thus would not have made contact with the ground at the same angle, thus would not have traveled inthe same direction once the pylons broke.
Yes, the supposed cable expert, landfill expert, bomb expert has spoken! Of course, when confronted with the facts he turns tail and runs..... Care to explain how backfill is somehow harder than natural compaction over hundreds, thousands and even millions of years? Oh right. You tried to post a law that had nothing to do with how "hard" they have to compact the ground as proof it was harder, yet couldn't explain why building codes specify a preference for natural compaction vs. backfill. It doesn't take a genius to see that pretending the land was actually HARDER than the surrounding land and in direct contradiction to the people who LIVED there is both moronic and dishonest.
The only way fill is going to come close to naturally settled earth is if it is engineered fill, even then it is not 100% as compact.
Did you inspect it after it was done to make sure? We all know that "laws" are always followed to the letter, right and that no one would have taken any shortcuts to save money. If there even was a legal requirement to do what you say, which is doubtful.
There is a legal requirement, and you already know this. You and others like you main objective, is undermine anything that would cause Citizens to take another look at the government BS. You could give a rats *** about the truth, you people are on a mission.
Look at the soil around the crater on 9/11/01. It is about as compact as the normal glacial moraine in the area, which is to say, not very. Plenty soft enough for a multi-ton, 500mph bullet to penetrsate rather deeply. Certainly more easily penetrated than the Normandy clay in which Paul Klipsch buried his Spitfire five feet deep. You can see from the pictures of the excavation of the buried engine that the soill was sliding back down into the holes dug by recovery equipment. You could give a rats *** about the truth, you people are on a mission.
