What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like

Author Topic: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like  (Read 10481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ExposeTheInformation

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« on: November 15, 2008, 07:37:07 pm »


"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane,"-Homer Barron
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

"If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated,"-Ron Delano
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html

"Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there."-Chris Konicki
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

"But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."-Nina Lensbouer
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

"I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."-Wallace Miller
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90823.html

Rare News Footage of Flight 93
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

Alleged wreckage of Flight 93 held at Iron Mountain
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,713
    • end times and current events
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2008, 07:54:32 am »
Yes so little debris. Plane always disintegrate on impact








HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Triadtropz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,703
  • Gods army is real..join up..
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2008, 08:05:41 am »
The shanksville plane was shot down ...the whole storys concocted..
one man with courage makes a majority..TJ

Offline wikipeidiaisnotFACT

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2008, 08:22:10 am »
hum.. this I probably agree with.

no one outside the US believes the plane was taken over by an all-star football team or what ever the official story was.

Offline Triadtropz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,703
  • Gods army is real..join up..
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2008, 08:29:26 am »
lets roll, is only in the movies...that plane was vaporized by the birdmans triangular fleet..
one man with courage makes a majority..TJ

Jesus Murphy

  • Guest
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2008, 12:24:13 pm »
IMO The "Let's Roll" story is nothing but a feel-good concoction designed by the MSM. They needed to present 'ordinary Americans' as heroes, and not just the FDNY, etc, for whom heroics is part of the job description. In reality, I'd be willing to bet that if the planes were highjacked, the passengers would be totally cowed, sitting in their seats pissing their pants. And not making cellphone calls to their mothers saying "Hi, mum, this is so-and-so...you believe me, don't you???" (Besides, wasn't it scientifically proven that those supposed cell phone calls were an impossibility???)

After all...didn't Rumsfeld f-ck up a few years back and actually say "...And the plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania" during a press conference or something?

Then there's the Pentagon...that's a damned nice lookin' lawn in front of the area where the damage was done...where's the plane wreckage, bodies, etc? CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre even said as much on the day...and has spent the last seven years contradicting that and trying to keep his story straight (I'd like to see one of the We Are Change groups catch up with that guy!)

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,852
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2008, 05:56:52 pm »
David Ray Griffin pointed out that one of the indicators the story of "Let's Roll" was not true
was the mention of phone calls in the official story that about a dozen came from the plane at an altitude too high for this to be possible then.

Refer: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20722.htm
Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania. According to a Washington Post story of September 13,

[P]assenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, . . . that the Boeing 757's cockpit had been taken over by three Middle Eastern-looking men. . . . The terrorists, wearing red headbands, had ordered the pilots, flight attendants and passengers to the rear of the plane.28

A story about a "cellular phone conversation" between flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw and her husband gave this report:

She said the plane had been taken over by three men with knives. She had gotten a close look at one of the hijackers. . . . "He had an Islamic look," she told her husband. 29

From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.

Still more specific information was reportedly conveyed during a 12-minute cell phone call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney on American Flight 11, which was to crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.30 After reaching American Airlines employee Michael Woodward and telling him that men of "Middle Eastern descent" had hijacked her flight, she then gave him their seat numbers, from which he was able to learn the identity of Mohamed Atta and two other hijackers.31 Amy Sweeney's call was critical, ABC News explained, because without it "the plane might have crashed with no one certain the man in charge was tied to al Qaeda."32


There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.33

Although some defenders of the official account, such as Popular Mechanics, have disputed the contention that high-altitude calls from airliners were impossible,34 the fact is that the FBI, after having at first supported the claims that such calls were made, withdrew this support a few years later.

With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone."35 But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.36

Behind that change was an implausible claim made by the FBI earlier in 2004: Although Woodward had failed to mention this when FBI agent Lechner interviewed him on 9/11, he had repeated Sweeney's call verbatim to a colleague in his office, who had in turn repeated it to another colleague at American headquarters in Dallas, who had recorded it; and this recording---which was discovered only in 2004---indicated that Sweeney had used a passenger-seat phone, thanks to "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant."37

This claim is implausible because, if this relayed recording had really been made on 9/11, we cannot believe that Woodward would have failed to mention it to FBI agent Lechner later that same day. While Lechner was taking notes, Woodward would surely have said: "You don't need to rely on my memory. There is a recording of a word-for-word repetition of Sweeney's statements down in Dallas." It is also implausible that Woodward, having repeated Sweeney's statement that she had used "an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant," would have told Lechner, as the latter's affidavit says, that Sweeney had been "using a cellular telephone."

Lechner's affidavit shows that the FBI at first supported the claim that Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call from a high-altitude airliner. Does not the FBI's change of story, after its first version had been shown to be technologically impossible, create the suspicion that the entire story was a fabrication?

This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI's change of story in relation to United Flight 93. Although we were originally told that this flight had been the source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBI gave a very different report at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The FBI spokesman said: "13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls."38 Instead of there having been about a dozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in 2005, there were really only two.

Why were two calls still said to have been possible? They were reportedly made at 9:58, when the plane was reportedly down to 5,000 feet.39 Although that was still pretty high for successful cell phone calls in 2001, these calls, unlike calls from 30,000 feet or higher, would have been at least arguably possible.

If the truth of the FBI's new account is assumed, how can one explain the fact that so many people had reported receiving cell phone calls? In most cases, it seems, these people had been told by the callers that they were using cell phones. For example, a Newsweek story about United 93 said: "Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family."40 In such cases, we might assume that the people receiving the calls had simply mis-heard, or mis-remembered, what they had been told. But this would mean positing that about a dozen people had made the same mistake.

An even more serious difficulty is presented by the case of Deena Burnett, who said that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew he was using his cell phone, she reported to the FBI that very day and then to the press and in a book, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her phone's Caller ID.41 We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying.

Therefore, if we accept the FBI's report, according to which Tom Burnett did not make any cell phone calls from Flight 93, we can only conclude that the calls were faked---that Deena Burnett was duped. Although this suggestion may at first sight seem outlandish, there are three facts that, taken together, show it to be more probable than any of the alternatives.

First, voice morphing technology was sufficiently advanced at that time to make faking the calls feasible. A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrations in which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and Carl Steiner, were heard saying things they had never said.42

Second, there are devices with which you can fake someone's telephone number, so that it will show up on the recipient's Caller ID.43

Third, the conclusion that the person who called Deena Burnett was not her husband is suggested by various features of the calls. For example, when Deena told the caller that "the kids" were asking to talk to him, he said: "Tell them I'll talk to them later." This was 20 minutes after Tom had purportedly realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to "crash this plane into the ground," and 10 minutes after he and other passengers had allegedly decided that as soon as they were "over a rural area" they must try to gain control of the plane. Also, the hijackers had reportedly already killed one person.44 Given all this, the real Tom Burnett would have known that he would likely die, one way or another, in the next few minutes. Is it believable that, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he would say that he would "talk to them later"? Is it not more likely that "Tom" made this statement to avoid revealing that he knew nothing about "the kids," perhaps not even their names?

Further evidence that the calls were faked is provided by timing problems in some of them. According to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 as a result of the passenger revolt, which began at 9:57. However, according to Lyzbeth Glick's account of the aforementioned cell phone call from her husband, Jeremy Glick, she told him about the collapse of the South Tower, and that did not occur until 9:59, two minutes after the alleged revolt had started. After that, she reported, their conversation continued for several more minutes before he told her that the passengers were taking a vote about whether to attack. According to Lyzbeth Glick's account, therefore, the revolt was only beginning by 10:03, when the plane (according to the official account) was crashing.45

A timing problem also occurred in the aforementioned call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney. While she was describing the hijackers, according to the FBI's account of her call, they stormed and took control of the cockpit.46 However, although the hijacking of Flight 11 "began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter," the 9/11 Commission said, Sweeney's call did not go through until 8:25.47 Her alleged call, in other words, described the hijacking as beginning over 11 minutes after it, according to the official timeline, had been successfully carried out.


Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.

Moreover, the FBI, besides implying, most clearly in the case of Deena Burnett, that the phone calls reporting the hijackings had been faked, comes right out and says, in its report about calls from Flight 77, that no calls from Barbara Olson occurred. It does mention her. But besides attributing only one call to her, not two, the FBI report refers to it as an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."48 In 2006, in other words, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, implied that the story told by the DOJ's former solicitor general was untrue. Although not mentioned by the press, this was an astounding development.

This FBI report leaves only two possible explanations for Ted Olson's story: Either he made it up or else he, like Deena Burnett and several others, was duped. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson's calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.

The opening section of The 9/11 Commission Report is entitled "Inside the Four Flights." The information contained in this section is based almost entirely on the reported phone calls. But if the reported calls were faked, we have no idea what happened inside these planes. Insofar as the idea that the planes were taken over by hijackers who looked "Middle Eastern," even "Islamic," has been based on the reported calls, this idea is groundless.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline david1971

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2009, 12:18:02 pm »
The shanksville plane was shot down ...the whole storys concocted..

Well, whatever plane was shot down over Shanksville wasn't flight 93!  Flight 93 crashed at Camp David!

Offline KiwiClare

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,852
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2009, 03:19:06 am »
Well, whatever plane was shot down over Shanksville wasn't flight 93!  Flight 93 crashed at Camp David!

Did it actually crash there - or was it reported as crashing there?

Camp David "Crash" More Evidence Of 9/11 Media Scripting?

"Uncovered archive video showing CBS News reporting that United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed at Camp David, 90 miles away from its supposed final resting place at Somerset County PA, has led to more charges that the media were reading off a de facto script as the events of 9/11 unfolded.

According to a CBS News report on 9/11, an FBI official in Washington was informed by the FAA that United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed "into the vicinity of or at Camp David," the presidential retreat.

The Secret Service are later cited as the source for confirming a crash near Camp David and that Camp David itself was not damaged, but that it was the intended target.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707campdavid.htm
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
LET'S ROLL
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2009, 04:02:41 am »
we need to compile a list of 'contested' or 'accidental' political mishaps that MSM has then gone on to make movies about to promote their NWO cause

didn't someone mention that THE BANKERS were never mentioned in JFK?

etc....

Offline phasma

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,201
  • Have a H.A.A.R.P.Y DAY !
Re: LET'S ROLL
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2009, 04:14:34 am »
we need to compile a list of 'contested' or 'accidental' political mishaps that MSM has then gone on to make movies about to promote their NWO cause

didn't someone mention that THE BANKERS were never mentioned in JFK?

etc....
BUMP this video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=JZekosYOmXc

You know what makes me more sick than anything about flight 93 ?
The way they made up a story that the ppl on this plane were hero`s that they yelled "lets roll" and stormed the cockpit causing it to crash.
Afetr so much horrow they give out this story and ppl cling to it - and do not question what they are told. Giant hole in the floor - no peice of wreckage bigger than a phone book? Come on ! engines? luggage? bodies? something! if it dive bombed the tail would have hit last there would be something.
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra

Offline nillumnoom5000

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2009, 04:53:51 pm »
lets roll, is only in the movies...that plane was vaporized by the birdmans triangular fleet..

I think smurfs and clowns did it!

Offline Southern Patriot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,125
  • Inter arma enim silent leges
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2009, 05:09:41 pm »
I still don't think it was shot down either. I have posted videos on here before of Air Force tests of sidewinder missiles and there is no way they would vaporize a Cesna let alone a Boeing. The missile explodes and the plane comes down in pieces that are still recognizable as airplane parts. The idea that a missile vaporized the plane is as absurd as believing it vaporized by crashing into the ground. Check out the USGS survey photo of the Shanksville Scar from 1996. All it was missing was the hole in the middle. The "wing holes" were already there at least 5 years before 9-11.

Offline nillumnoom5000

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2009, 05:12:47 pm »
All it was missing was the hole in the middle. The "wing holes" were already there at least 5 years before 9-11.

Fascinating!!! Any images showing what that field looked like 5 years before?

Offline Southern Patriot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,125
  • Inter arma enim silent leges
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2009, 06:26:52 pm »

Fascinating!!! Any images showing what that field looked like 5 years before?
Sorry...I meant 1994. Here is the link. Watch the whole video or just skip to 1:57 for the scar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwj1KXyhv0A
I have tried to reupload it ten times and Youtube keeps f**king with me. I upload them as .flv so they don't need to be converted and every time I try to upload something they don't like it tells me unable to convert.

Offline Southern Patriot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,125
  • Inter arma enim silent leges
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2009, 06:37:42 pm »
They have even completely filled in the hole and changed the landscape all together now in an attempt to bury the truth.

Offline nillumnoom5000

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: What An Airplane Crash Doesn't Look Like
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2009, 06:50:57 pm »
I have tried to reupload it ten times and Youtube keeps f**king with me. I upload them as .flv so they don't need to be converted and every time I try to upload something they don't like it tells me unable to convert.

Man, are they a Plate of Spaghetti or what??!! Bastards!!