The Crash Scene of Flight 93 Defies Logic
(The "facts" below are culled from Jere Longman's book on UA Flight 93-- "Among the Heroes"-- which has lots of good information besides being filled with melodramatic tripe. The inspiration for thinking about this was from a Democratic Underground post-- "Part II: ... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!")
If we are to accept the official version of flight 93 crashing, we are to accept:
1) The hijackers intentionally crashed the plane because the passenger revolt was succeeding.
2) the plane was flying upside down at the time of its crash because the hijacker pilot was trying to disrupt the passengers who were trying to take over the cockpit.
3) the plane was flying almost 600 mph when it crashed.
4) the plane impacts a reclaimed strip mine area at full force, at an extreme angle of 45-90 degrees.
5) the plane burrows into the soft ground and leaves an imprint remarkably similar to the shape of the plane-- as it would be expected for if it was flying upside down-- thus the tail leaves a clear mark in the ground.
6) much of the plane accordions upon impact, and the bulk of the plane burrows COMPLETELY into the ground, 15-50 feet below the surface. The plane or anything like a plane cannot be seen at the crash site by people who arrive first. There are small fires all around, and only very small pieces of debris are scattered about. No bodies are visible.
This part above makes SOME sense.
Now here is where it gets weird:
7) the plane also EXPLODES massively, shooting tons of debris BACKWARDS for hundreds of feet behind the impact site. This debris includes a piece of an engine that weighed one thousand pounds that was found over one hundreds yards from the crash site. So, for unknown reasons, the explosion went in the exact opposite direction the plane was supposed to be going. Some of the debris was body parts and passenger belongings that flew into the forest behind the crash and got stuck in the trees. Many of the trees behind the crash area were also badly burned from the explosion.
8) The explosion occurred without disturbing the basic pattern of the plane impact area. Thus, the plane must have gone into the ground in one piece, blew up, and then the crater reformed into the shape of the plane.
9) The explosion also was strong enough to send some very small light debris very high in the air, such that this debris landed eight miles away, supposedly downwind.
This is what we are supposed to believe happened when the plane crashed.
If we accept these basic premises, does this make any sense?
How can a plane explode like this but also burrow so far into the ground?
How can a massive engine part be blown hundreds of feet backwards into the forest?
How can the plane explode but still leave a plane-shaped imprint in the ground?
And WHY didn't the earth collapse around the burrowing plane and stifle or minimize the explosion?
I simply cannot visualize how a plane can blow up into so many tiny pieces but also leave a plane-shaped imprint and burrow so deep into the ground.
I cannot understand why the explosion went in the direction it did.
I cannot understand how some debris ended up EIGHT miles away. (One or two miles I could see, but EIGHT?)
Why is this plane crash so strange? Why did at least two of the 9/11 plane crashes defy logic? (e.g. The Pentagon crash is also strange but for different reasons.)
If you think you can explain what happened to produce this crash pattern, please let me know.
I really can't understand this.
LATE UPDATE-- after further thought, there ARE some similarities with the flight 93 crash and the flight 11 crash into the WTC (the first crash). Both planes were completely subsumed into the thing they hit (building or ground). Flight 11 produced an explosion that burst out backwards from the direction the plane was going. This could well have been the case for flight 93. BUT-- the ground into which flight 93 burrowed SHOULD have dampened the explosion if not prevented it. Also, if the plane went deep into the ground, where did the oxygen come from for the explosion? Finally, I wouldn't expect an explosion from a plane burrowing into the ground to be so powerful as to knock a thousand pound piece of engine backwards hundreds of feet.
The one way to explain this-- PERHAPS-- is to say the explosion occurred just after the plane hit the ground, after the plane made its mark. The explosion could have pushed the front part of the plane forward further into the earth, while blowing the back part of the plane apart and all over. This might make sense. However-- according to the official story-- almost the entire fuselage was burrowed into the ground. Plus, the plane's tail made a mark on the ground similar to the wings. So the explosion rocketing half the plane deep into the ground and half backwards doesn't really fit either.
There are some other considerations too--
1) the flight may have come from a different direction (the debris trail was officially reported up to 8 miles east of the crash)
2) the flight may have had some damage before crashing (consistent with the Ed Felt call)
3) the plane may have had some bomb on board that exploded upon impact (to account for the huge explosion).
Finally, what angle did the plane hit the ground? I would say it had to hit at a 60-90 degree angle to make a crater like shown in the pictures (see the DU thread linked above)-- but as John Doe II points out in the DU thread-- how did the plane manage such a steep angle at the low altitude it was at before crashing (according to the witneses)?
Thus-- it seems almost certain that flight 93 came from a different direction-- meaning the witnesses all saw some OTHER plane acting like flight 93.
For what it is worth, in "American Assassination: the Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone", the writers mention a James D. Sanders who investigated flight 93-- he says that it was "holed" before it crashed (probably by a missile), and spread debris, including body parts, at a lake three miles from where it crashed. He claims witnesses saw the plane fly over the lake then saw the debris dump. The lake is most likely Indian Lake, since that is the only lake exactly three miles from the crash site. And Indian Lake is EAST of the crash site. The official story is that flight 93 is coming from the WEST. So this Sanders story fits with the different direction theory. (I don't know where the original Sanders story is published, if anywhere. They were mentioning it in the book in reference to other NTSB cover-ups besides the Wellstone crash.)
If we are to accept the official version of flight 93 crashing, we are to accept:
1) The hijackers intentionally crashed the plane because the passenger revolt was succeeding.
2) the plane was flying upside down at the time of its crash because the hijacker pilot was trying to disrupt the passengers who were trying to take over the cockpit.
3) the plane was flying almost 600 mph when it crashed.
4) the plane impacts a reclaimed strip mine area at full force, at an extreme angle of 45-90 degrees.
5) the plane burrows into the soft ground and leaves an imprint remarkably similar to the shape of the plane-- as it would be expected for if it was flying upside down-- thus the tail leaves a clear mark in the ground.
6) much of the plane accordions upon impact, and the bulk of the plane burrows COMPLETELY into the ground, 15-50 feet below the surface. The plane or anything like a plane cannot be seen at the crash site by people who arrive first. There are small fires all around, and only very small pieces of debris are scattered about. No bodies are visible.
This part above makes SOME sense.
Now here is where it gets weird:
7) the plane also EXPLODES massively, shooting tons of debris BACKWARDS for hundreds of feet behind the impact site. This debris includes a piece of an engine that weighed one thousand pounds that was found over one hundreds yards from the crash site. So, for unknown reasons, the explosion went in the exact opposite direction the plane was supposed to be going. Some of the debris was body parts and passenger belongings that flew into the forest behind the crash and got stuck in the trees. Many of the trees behind the crash area were also badly burned from the explosion.
8) The explosion occurred without disturbing the basic pattern of the plane impact area. Thus, the plane must have gone into the ground in one piece, blew up, and then the crater reformed into the shape of the plane.
9) The explosion also was strong enough to send some very small light debris very high in the air, such that this debris landed eight miles away, supposedly downwind.
This is what we are supposed to believe happened when the plane crashed.
If we accept these basic premises, does this make any sense?
How can a plane explode like this but also burrow so far into the ground?
How can a massive engine part be blown hundreds of feet backwards into the forest?
How can the plane explode but still leave a plane-shaped imprint in the ground?
And WHY didn't the earth collapse around the burrowing plane and stifle or minimize the explosion?
I simply cannot visualize how a plane can blow up into so many tiny pieces but also leave a plane-shaped imprint and burrow so deep into the ground.
I cannot understand why the explosion went in the direction it did.
I cannot understand how some debris ended up EIGHT miles away. (One or two miles I could see, but EIGHT?)
Why is this plane crash so strange? Why did at least two of the 9/11 plane crashes defy logic? (e.g. The Pentagon crash is also strange but for different reasons.)
If you think you can explain what happened to produce this crash pattern, please let me know.
I really can't understand this.
LATE UPDATE-- after further thought, there ARE some similarities with the flight 93 crash and the flight 11 crash into the WTC (the first crash). Both planes were completely subsumed into the thing they hit (building or ground). Flight 11 produced an explosion that burst out backwards from the direction the plane was going. This could well have been the case for flight 93. BUT-- the ground into which flight 93 burrowed SHOULD have dampened the explosion if not prevented it. Also, if the plane went deep into the ground, where did the oxygen come from for the explosion? Finally, I wouldn't expect an explosion from a plane burrowing into the ground to be so powerful as to knock a thousand pound piece of engine backwards hundreds of feet.
The one way to explain this-- PERHAPS-- is to say the explosion occurred just after the plane hit the ground, after the plane made its mark. The explosion could have pushed the front part of the plane forward further into the earth, while blowing the back part of the plane apart and all over. This might make sense. However-- according to the official story-- almost the entire fuselage was burrowed into the ground. Plus, the plane's tail made a mark on the ground similar to the wings. So the explosion rocketing half the plane deep into the ground and half backwards doesn't really fit either.
There are some other considerations too--
1) the flight may have come from a different direction (the debris trail was officially reported up to 8 miles east of the crash)
2) the flight may have had some damage before crashing (consistent with the Ed Felt call)
3) the plane may have had some bomb on board that exploded upon impact (to account for the huge explosion).
Finally, what angle did the plane hit the ground? I would say it had to hit at a 60-90 degree angle to make a crater like shown in the pictures (see the DU thread linked above)-- but as John Doe II points out in the DU thread-- how did the plane manage such a steep angle at the low altitude it was at before crashing (according to the witneses)?
Thus-- it seems almost certain that flight 93 came from a different direction-- meaning the witnesses all saw some OTHER plane acting like flight 93.
For what it is worth, in "American Assassination: the Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone", the writers mention a James D. Sanders who investigated flight 93-- he says that it was "holed" before it crashed (probably by a missile), and spread debris, including body parts, at a lake three miles from where it crashed. He claims witnesses saw the plane fly over the lake then saw the debris dump. The lake is most likely Indian Lake, since that is the only lake exactly three miles from the crash site. And Indian Lake is EAST of the crash site. The official story is that flight 93 is coming from the WEST. So this Sanders story fits with the different direction theory. (I don't know where the original Sanders story is published, if anywhere. They were mentioning it in the book in reference to other NTSB cover-ups besides the Wellstone crash.)
posted by spooked at 5:54 PM
1 Comments:
you've probably already seen this, or know about it, but just in case:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/31/1546207
Post a Comment
<< Home