Look At This Airplane Crash Reconstruction -- Photo

[jbrid1138]

Now this is PAN AM FLIGHT 103 that was 'blown up' over Lockerbie Scotland back in 1988
http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=19881221-0&vnr=2&kind=C

The parts were scattered over 50 miles and yet they were able to reconstruct part of it like is shown above.

When it comes to 9/11 we are ZERO for four.  Wonder why that is?

[zenitSpb]

yet again we have more prove that this whole 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB...well done for finding that...

[NotSure]

Flight 800 that blew up off the coast of Long Island was also completely reconstructed in a hanger.  That plane blew up into a million little pieces scatterred for many miles in the ocean and they were still able to put it back together.

[jbrid1138]

You're right -- NOT SURE // Now that sounded like double speak didn't it.

Here's some info (photographs included) as regards TWA Flight 800 (B747):
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/what.wrong/index.html

It took 10 months and 10,000 staff hours to reconstruct a 90 foot section of this B747 that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in July 1996.

[Tess]

[sarcasm on]

Weird!
There must be some kind of conspiracy at work here, since it is a proven fact that airplanes evaporate on contact with the ground. (A proven fact since 9/11 anyway)

[sarcasm off]

[basil_brush]

And when you look at aerial footage of the flight 93 there is just small hole in the ground and literally no debris whatsoever, except what looks like maybe some bits of paper or something sprinkled around. Surely the place would look like refuse tip if a plane had disintegrated there? I'm convinced it never crashed there - or they carted off the debris before anyone could see it. There's no way that what we've seen at shanksville is an ordinary valid plane crash.

[jbrid1138]

All what you say is true, but so is this additional information for consideration:

Eye witness testimony that saw a white unmarked airplane (a style resembling a military jet) flying in the vicinity immeditely before a loud explosion was heard.  This was at a time when all commercial aircraft had been ordered down out of the skies.  Some claim to have heard two loud explosions.  Some who claim to have some experience with knowing the sound a missile makes claim they heard a missile that morning.  Some claim they saw debris (on fire) raining down over a lake (Indian Lake) a number of miles away from the alleged crash site.  Some claim the engine part discovered many feet away from the crash site was in fact an entire engine weighing in at nearly one-ton and found nearly one mile away.  Some claim they discovered contents of the airplane up to eight miles away, and not days later but almost immediately coinciding with the alleged time of the crash.  Some claim the wind carried those items there (but some were small metalic parts and what appeared to be a rib bone), some claim (the engine) bounced that distance -- that's up for you and your common sense to make sense out of.

I personally think it was an airplane, one that was shot down (happened this way because the passengers had regained control of the airplane) // one of those passengers was a bonafide airplane pilot // one of those passengers was a former police officer // one of those passengers was a judo expert.

There is some concern over what the family members initially heard when allowed to listen to the tape playback from Flight 93 versus what the tape later indicates.  Many family members reported hearing PULL UP, for example // later the tape indicates instructions to crash the plane.  Completely opposite.  The tape seems to end before the reported crash occurs, was this perhaps to edit to omit data?  The official time of crash and other scientific evidence as to time of crash conflict with each other -- so who is right, the government wanting us to believe their story? -- or scientific evidence?

The government claims it gave the shoot down order but only after the airplane had crashed -- there is much conflict as regards the timing of this matter, the conflicts are as supported by eye witness testimony and scientific findings.

Was this airplane becoming evidence that might be examined later?  Was this airplane being saved by the passengers?  Sure sounds like it. 

We already know 'THEY' got rid of evidence (the steel at the WTC; the videos of the Pentagon strike) // if we agree that 9/11 was an inside job -- Do you NOT think they would be concerned for other evidence as well?  When it comes to airplanes -- what's the evidence that's left to be examined completely and thoroughly?

On top of the official narration we have a movie called Flight 93 that reinforces the official story where the airplane crashed as a result of the heroic efforts of certain passengers that day.  Crashed or shot down?  I believe it was shot down, not by accident but on purpose the moment it was learned the passengers had control.  Let the people continue to believe in heroes aboard the flight because they were hereos -- being shot down out of the sky wasn't their idea.