122 Comments

On my flight 93 post with the cartoon diagrams.

The commentators were mostly Pinch's allies, I assume, from the tone of the comments. The common theme was that I was completely nuts for questioning the flight 93 crash and for drawing diagrams explaining the official story.


Unfortunately, in 122 comments, no one was able to explain the strange way in which flight 93 crashed. Here are some overhead views of the crash crater.


Overhead video of crater--


The closest anyone came to explaining the flight 93 crash site was comparing flight 93 to a fragmenting bullet-- where the tip shattered upon impact and then the rear of the bullet entered the target. At least they made an effort to understand it.

I have thought about the physics of fragmenting bullets myself, but I can't find any evidence that the tip of a fragmenting bullet can break apart without entering the target while the rear part of the bullet penetrates. Rather as described here--

The much demonized fragmenting bullets are plastic tipped and frangible, and as such their penetration is minimized, and the bullet's energy is transferred to the target very rapidly. The plastic tip is wedge (cone) shaped, and when it impacts the target it is driven rapidly rearward into the body of the bullet, causing it to expand and fragment. They are typically used on very small varmints such as ground hogs and prairie dogs. The rapid energy transfer from these bullets causes small varmint targets to appear to explode when hit. On larger animals the penetration is often not sufficient to cause an immediate fatal wound, and a superficial (shallow) wound is created over a relatively wide area.

-- the tip doesn't shatter but pushes back into the bullet causing it to expand as it enters. This has the effect of slowing down the bullet so there is less penetration, but also causing more tissue damage since a wider area of tissue is shredded. So I think the fragmenting bullet analogy doesn't hold up.

Here I will make a very precise challenge-- can anyone find another example of a large airplane crash where the plane left a near perfect imprint of itself in the ground and at the same time both totally fragmented and buried itself in the ground-- such that no large debris was found anywhere?

Any crash involving water, such as the Florida Everglades crash doesn't count, since the water will obviously hide the debris. But there have been LOTS of large jet crashes over the years. Has there been ANY crash where the plane disappeared so dramatically but also left a plane-shaped hole in the ground?

If, in the scores of known jet crashes, there is not one example similar to flight 93, I think it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked or not. And as far as I know, there is no other similar crash-- though I am happy to be proven wrong.

Of course, it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked or not simply in light of the proposal to fake plane crashes in the Operation Northwoods plan and the fact that 9/11 was a huge pretext for war. Moreover, simply based on what else we know about 9/11 coupled with the strangeness of the flight 93 crash site, it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked.