Why the Flight 93 Crash Site Is Different

Following up on my previous post, where I argued that the main thing that held me back from accepting the idea of real plane crashes was the flight 93 crash site, I finally realized why it is different.

The thing about the WTC and Pentagon sites is that:
1) there's a big hole in the building into which the plane could *conceivably* disappear and break up,
2) we can't see the whole area around the WTC and Pentagon sites to get a comprehensive view of the debris field, particularly for the WTC, we can't see all around the bottom of the towers to see what plane parts didn't make it in (and there were some pieces that apparently came out such as landing gears, fuselage fragments and engine).

Whereas for flight 93:
1) there is just dirt, and a hole, and it's really hard to see a HUGE plane going in that hole.
2) we can see the whole debris field around the "crash site" and there's NOTHING.

We have a fairly clear set of evidence for the flight 93 site, and it's just wrong.

Finally-- I made this point a LONG time ago, but it's critical: once you accept that the flight 93 crash site is bogus, it totally reframes all the other crash site evidence. Whereas I *might* accept that the WTC and Pentagon crash sites are real if more convincing evidence is presented, I can not see how any evidence could ever show the flight 93 site to be real. But if the flight 93 site is fake, then clearly that indicates all the other crash sites are likely to be fake.