Fake Plane Crashes

As regular readers of this site know, one of the best explanations for what happened on 9/11 is that all four of the plane crashes were "faked". The fake plane crash theory basically holds that the four official flights of 9/11: AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175 didn't truly crash at the WTC, at the Pentagon, or in the crater near Shanksville, PA.

The reason this theory exists is because none of the official 9/11 crash scenes hold up to detailed scrutiny-- for a variety of reasons that I have written about over and over again.

What happened at the crash scenes?

There are three basic possibilities:

1) a specially-equipped look-alike remote control drone plane was used instead of the official aircraft

2) a specially-equipped smaller remote control drone plane/missile was used instead of the official aircraft

3) there were no aircraft/missiles used and the plane crashes were faked purely with explosives and planted debris, perhaps in conjunction with high-tech gadgetry. The 2nd hit videos were all faked.

Regular readers of this site will know that I have increasingly gravitated to the last possibility-- although early on I quite liked possibility #1.

NOW, what we all have to admit is that, assuming the plane crashes were faked (and I think there is abundant evidence this is the case), that the perpetrators did a pretty good job of faking it and of covering up the fakery.

This is why so many people believe in the official story. While some people really (desperately) WANT to believe in the official story, probably most people just haven't looked at the evidence carefully (they are too busy or haven't had exposure to it).

Now let's take a look at the flight 93 crash site. Let's ignore all those rumors that the plane was shot down. Let's just look at the evidence.

At first glance, the crash site is DAMN STRANGE for the crash of a very large jet. There is just a smallish hole, in the shape of a plane, smoking, with some small debris strewn around. Early on, all we see are pictures of very small debris found in the woods, and rumors of a large engine piece found quite a ways from the main crash site. Some accounts describe small pieces of debris and small pieces of human remains scattered for hundreds of feet. By all accounts, there is very little large debris laying on the ground. We are then presented with a story that most of the plane went into the ground and buried deep itself in the ground. Okay, that sounds weird. There is still the question of what angle UA93 went into the ground, and how the front part of the plane could have smashed apart at the same time the rear went into the ground. There was in fact a plane crash in 1960, NW flight 710, in a muddy field in Indiana, where much of the plane buried itself in the ground. The crash of NW710 was at a similar speed as the official UA93 speed but involved a plane going into the ground vertically after the wings broke off. Unfortunately we don't have pictures of the NW710 crash scene. But, there is some precedent for a plane crash where the plane almost completely disappears in the ground. On the other hand, the NW710 crater WAS bigger than the UA93 crater, even though UA93 was a bigger plane. The NW710 crater has significant tail pieces sticking out of the crater. Then there are the many other details that cast doubt on the official UA93 story. The coroner never sees any blood. Only very small human remains are found, only a small percentage of the total body masses. No one describes the smell of burnt flesh at the crime scene. There is unburnt grass right next to the crater. The smoke plume doesn't look right and isn't in the right place. There are conflicting stories about where various debris is found. It is not clear how the plane could have gone straight vertically in the crater if it was flying at a very low altitude. There is the question of whether the plane was really flying upside down when it crashed. There is Ed Felt's strange phone call from the bathroom that later gets removed from the official narrative. There are oddities in the Bingham and Beamer phone calls. There are the holes in the timing of the passenger revolt and there are holes in when the plane actually crashed. There is the question of how the plane was ever hijacked in the first place when the pilots were warned of hijackings and had been previously prepared for a hijacking. There is the question of why the hijackers waited so long to hijack the plane (30 minutes) when the plane was already so far behind schedule (45 minutes). There is the question of why the hijackers put on red bandanas in one account but in no other passenger account, and the miracle of the unscathed red bandana supposedly recovered from the crash site. There is the question of why no passenger described more than three hijackers. There are the various versions of the UA93 story that NORAD gave-- first that they identified it as hijacked at 9:13 am (before it was officially hijacked) but couldn't find the plane, then identified it as hijacked later but couldn't get to the plane in time though fighters were scrambled, then finally that NORAD never even had a chance to find the plane because they were notified too late-- all the while United Airlines was supposedly watching the plane move across their big screen at headquarters. There was the apparent UA93 debris from the plane that made it to New Baltimore, 8 miles from the crash scene, as well as significant debris that landed around Indian lake, over a mile away. And the list of anomalies goes on.

The most striking UA93 evidence to me is actually the evidence of the "UA93 crash" that was shown at the Moussaoui trial. For the first time we were shown real Boeing debris! And boy was it suspicious! This fuselage piece was clearly planted. This engine piece is clearly not consistent with the official story and was probably planted as well. Certainly no one has yet explained how these pieces could be bona fide debris from the official story. But WHY would anyone plant evidence of a Boeing 757 unless the crash was faked?

But the general fact is that the UA93 crash site DID have a lot of debris -- meaning that either SOMETHING crashed there, or that the planners did an EXTREMELY THOROUGH job of sprinkling debris all around. I honestly don't know WHAT made that crater in Pennsylvania, but I can say with certainty that the official UA93 story is simply false. There are simply too many improbabilities and inconsistencies for it to be completely true.

And all this is completely ignoring other evidence of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- which makes the fakery aspect more probable!!!

------------
By the way, this flight 93 whole sequence in fact is how much of 9/11 has unfolded to me: at a first cursory glance the evidence appears odd, then I learn more and the official story gets fleshed out and it starts to seem a little less odd-- but THEN, on even an closer examination, things become even MORE odd and improbable!