Things that might make you think
 
HomeRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 More proof of 9/11 hoax--- Hoodwinked at Shanksville: The Boeing 757 Challenge!

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 3863
Join date : 2008-11-28

PostSubject: More proof of 9/11 hoax--- Hoodwinked at Shanksville: The Boeing 757 Challenge!    Sun Aug 04, 2013 5:07 pm

Proof that no plane crashed at Shansville on 9/11
You have to marvel at the level of BS in the buried plane story....Cool 



The Boeing 757 Challenge!


Let's review the official story of what happened after Flight 93 allegedly crashed.

The Boeing 757 supposedly flipped on its back and crashed into an empty field at a 40-deg angle.

Incredibly, hardly anything appeared to be left of the large plane.

People who reached the scene were stunned at what they saw, or better yet, what they didn't see.

"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane," Barron said. - Post-Gazette.com (09/12/01)

"If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known," Delano said. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)



Some thought the plane must have bounced into the woods.

"Officials [said]... Most of the plane's debris kept traveling after the plane hit and landed in the woods past the mine." - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)

“It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

Capt. Monaco [said] "the plane initially struck and continued on into the south," disappearing into the woods. - Daily Athenaeum (09/12/01)



This was even depicted in a scene from a movie about the alleged crash of Flight 93.

But no plane was found in the woods, so people just assumed that Flight 93 had simply disintegrated from impacting at such a high speed.

"the plane is pretty much disintegrated. There’s nothing left but scorched trees," said Mark Stahl. - Daily American (09/12/01)

“It looked like it hit and disintegrated,” Delano said. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

“Once it hit, everything just disintegrated,” said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)



This explanation seemed to be what the news ran with ever since with some officials still perpetuating it.

"[Wally] Miller holds up the bag and says that virtually the entire airplane, including its 44 human occupants, disintegrated..." - Washington Post (05/12/02)

"the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated..." - The Age (09/09/02)

"the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the 500 mph impact..." - Standard-Times (09/11/02)



But this theory seemed problematic, because only two weeks after 9/11, officials had announced that an astonishing "95%" of Flight 93 had been recovered!

"The FBI announced... that 95 percent of the plane was recovered... and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline…" - CNN (09/24/01)


This claim just didn't seem to jive with the crime scene, since practically no plane looked to be left afterward.

But what most people might not know, is that the news started reporting another reason why so little of Flight 93 looked to be left -- a full year after the incident!

It turns out that since Flight 93 "happened" to crash into an old strip-mine that had been refilled with dirt, the ground was still "soft" and "spongy" at the time of impact and this enabled most of Flight 93's 155ft-long fuselage to tunnel and disappear into the ground.

"The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart... digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy from the old mine work." - Pittsburgh Live (09/11/02)

"The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in." - St. Petersburg Times (09/10/03)

--------------------------
(Following article not in video.)

"it took a while to identify the exact location of impact because there was no plane visible... "There is no plane there, believe me."
The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage." - St. Anthony Messenger Online (09/06)


So this explains how officials were able to find 95% of Flight 93 when practically nothing looked to be left of it on the surface that as a result of the high speed impact into a soft patch of earth, about "80%" of Flight 93 had supposedly burrowed under and buried itself in the ground.

Recovery crews said they had to excavate down to about 45ft to dig it all out.

"FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues." - dep.state.pa.us (09/16/01)


So that means 15% of the plane had to have been recovered above ground.

Now if a long thin 757 was able to act like a 'bullet' and burrow itself underground, it's not surprising that not all of it made it underneath.

But what is surprising is the part that supposedly didn't make it under!

"[Wally] Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth... He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area..." - PittsburghLive.com (05/30/02)


But wait a minute, something just doesn't add up.


(No, not the part about most of the plane burrowing under except for the cockpit which supposedly broke off and landed outside in the woods -- although that is a head-scratcher!)

It's just that if a 757 (with its long fuselage, two heavy engines, and huge tail section) was able to mostly burrow under this "soft" soil, you would think it would have left a deep gaping hole in the ground, one that when first responders reached it and looked inside, they would have easily seen the mangled remains of this United Airlines plane down in it.

But instead, all that was seen in the first aerial photos taken shortly after the incident was just a shallow 10ft-deep crater which happened to look more like it was caused by a bomb!

How could that be?!

Well get this, after most of Flight 93 supposedly burrowed more than 30ft underneath the surface, the ground just "happened" to self-seal itself!!!

"the Boeing 757's fuselage disintegrated in a crater that collapsed on itself" - Pittsburg Post Gazette (10/15/01)

"The rest of the 757 continued its downward passage, the sandy loam closing behind it like the door of a tomb." - The Age (09/09/02)


Officials had even said that they actually had to dig quite a ways under that shallow crater to find the plane!

"searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater." - Standard-Times (09/11/02)

"firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it." - St. Petersburg Times (09/10/03)



So by the hole self-sealing itself, any evidence that a 757 was buried deep in the ground -- and thereby easily dispelling any rumors that no plane had actually crashed there -- was blocked from everyone's view.

(but it's all just a coincidence, right?)

So if you still believe in the official story that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville (or that it was shot down, but still crashed in that field for that matter), here's an easy challenge for you:

Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with VISUAL evidence that one of these:

was buried under this shallow crater:

To help with this challenge, here's what a 757 looks like in an empty field.

(Kind of fragile, huh?!)

Now remember, in order to win the challenge, you have to prove with visual evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 757 was BURIED UNDER the crater and not just show a bunch of photos of people digging up dirt with nothing in it, or a bunch of debris collected who-knows-where and say they are pieces of Flight 93 that were found under the crater.

And just in case you were going to show that one photo of the little engine piece only about 4 feet below the surface that's supposedly being extracted from the crater (like that alone is enough to prove a 757 was buried underground!), remember that I showed in a previous episode that this engine scrap looked rusted and wasn't even submerged in the dirt and it just "happened" to be small enough to fit in the very backhoe bucket seen right next to it which strongly suggests that rusted dirt-free engine scrap was planted in that hole by the backhoe bucket, thereby disqualifying that photo as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But don't worry, 80% of a Boeing 757 is still a lot of plane, so there should be plenty of other visual evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Flight 93 was buried under that shallow crater.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://broadsword.forumn.org Online
 
More proof of 9/11 hoax--- Hoodwinked at Shanksville: The Boeing 757 Challenge!
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» 100% Proof
» 100% Proof - The Power and the Glory
» The Sacrificed
» Metal, Rock & Industrial Challenge #3: The Playlist
» HERO's Challenge - Christian Rock & Metal Collage #2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LONG WAY HOME :: music :: The real world you may not know about-
Jump to: