In my latest attempt to convince the world that the US government was behind 9/11, I was told that a plane can disintegrate into nothing larger than a phone book. Of course I am referring to the least popular of the three incidents occurring on 9/11 that is Shanksville, United Airlines, Flight 93. We argued on back and forth, even getting a scientist specializing in physics to back me up. The person, remaining nameless, still thought a airplane could disintegrate at impact when hitting the ground. After thinking deeply about how to convince this person, and maybe some of you all, I decided that if science would not convince, then history would convince. Let’s take a look at five plane crashes from the 80’s and 90’s that are similar to the plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11.
The picture above is Flight 132, for Japan Airlines. It crashed on August 12, 1985. The size and build of this plane, which is a 747, is very similar to Flight 93’s Boeing 767. The wreckage is surprisingly similar in that much of the debris is very small. But the picture reveals large sheets of metal among other things, none of which were present in Shanksville.
(above) This Boeing 747 for Pan American Airlines was brought down by a bomb. As you can see, half of the cockpit is sitting with no apparent bomb damage. My question: How can this plane be un-disintegrated, unburned, and basically in one piece? Flight 93 had no bomb inside it, yet it somehow received more damage.
(above) Here is another example of a plane very similar to United Airlines Flight 93 that is virtually sitting in one piece after a plane crash like the one on 9/11. There are small pieces like Shanksville had, but the big thing to realize is that a plane is smoldering at the scene, not just small disintegrated metal scraps.
(above) Yet another 747 close in architecture to Flight 93 that sits at the crash site in large pieces in Madrid, Spain.
And another. Tons of debris in big pieces.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Now let’s look at some picture of United Airlines Flight 93.
Doesn’t match up with history, does it?
where the hell did you get those pics. wikipedia?
I’m so glad to see you didn’t haave a real argument for that. MAking fun of my sources the way you are just makes my argument better. And no. Check my biblio. It’s 100 worst plane crashes. That sort of sight wouldn’t photoshop the pictures. They don’t really have a motive for doing so.
oh right, so me “falsely detracting” from your sources makes you look good?? right.
If the government really faked the plane crashes, and had enough foresight and planning to slip past airport security, why would they bring down one of their own “missiles,” and why wouldn’t they even bother making the plane crater respectable? Obviously, if the plane was taken down in the air, it was blown up by a bomb, unlikely, or the plane never took off, which goes against all the black-box evidence.
I do not understand what you mean by missles. There is no missle invloved in the crash that is the so called plane. And it is obviously respectbale enough for someone like you that assumes the first thing you hear. just like the rest of our United States. Also, it is possible that a missile hit the plane and that is how it was taken down.Something we theorists consder quite often. Then this crated may seem resonble. And it is alos very possible for the black box evidence to be faked. THink about it.
and the government did a good enough job for someone of your average IQ to understand
garton keep in mind that the black box is just software and can be modified.
keep in mind that those flights that you have pictures of the were being flown by pilots who have had years of practice the people flying Flight 93 had never flown before this could impact the landing dramatically. Although i geuss that really makes no diffrence
fyi, the missiles are the planes
Hey, man, great article. It’s really amazing how people can buy the official story of Flight 93’s crash when history, physics, and common sense all weigh against it. You should remove this photo from here though: http://www.unitedflight93.com/image/crater-flight93.jpg
It’s not a real photo. It came from the A&E documentary and was used by debunkers who didn’t appear to know that it was not authentic.
i am gonna show this to my friend, guy
Cool post.., brother
[...] Plane Crashes through the Years Compared to Flight 93 – Doingmypart.wordpress.com [...]
Some have said that there is no black-ops motivation to create a bogus crash site in Pennsylvania. I will explain exactly what motivation exists, and why this event was in fact integral to the events that transpired in the years following 9/11.
If it is supposed that 9/11 was actually a nazi-style false-flag event manufactured to gather support for an agenda that would otherwise meet with obstructive public disapproval, we must consider the three necessary attitudes that must be instilled in the public mind for it to work.
In this order, they are:
1) Fear
2) Sense of imminent danger
3) Misguided resolve
To transform a free society in to a dictatorship, you must break away the society from it’s core values, and then reassemble it around the dictator’s values. This is achieved by manipulating the public mind. When Hitler burned his own government buildings and blamed this on “the communists”, these were his three aims. His intention was to frighten the German people and to make them believe that an immediate threat to their personal wellbeing existed. He then followed up with a series of powerful speeches designed to rebuild shattered German solidarity around his dictatorship.
The collapse of the twin towers was the primary agent for injecting fear in to the society. These images were replayed again and again, and are to this day referred to as justification for continued violence. The damage to the pentagon created a sense of immediate danger by showing the American people that even the most well-guarded building on earth is not safe from these attacks. Flight 93 receives the least attention in the mainstream media today, but this event was the lynch-pin of the entire operation. “The heroism of Flight 93’s passengers” served as the means to rebuild the shattered society around the flag-waving, cliche-spouting status-quo administration which then delivered the nation in to a bloody and altogether irrelevant occupation of Iraq. Indeed, in the months immediately following 9/11, Flight 93 was referenced again and again as a means to reconstitute American confidence around the President, whose approval rating skyrocketed as he excised the constitution from American law.
To understand what happened on 9/11, we must understand who benefited from it. Certainly, Muslim extremists did not benefit. They fell in to extreme danger immediately after the event, and are now being hunted and killed by the hundreds every year. Who benefited from 9/11? American private banking institutions, corporate interests such as big oil and the never-before-seen ‘defense contracting’, and of course the top circle of government. We could suppose that these entities merely took shrewd advantage of an availed opportunity, but this is not satisfactory when trying to explain the event itself.
The events of 9/11 follow the historical model of false-flag attacks exactly, except scaled-up to match the context of an increasingly globalized modern society. It is incredibly naive not to question the official story, even if its facts appear consistent–which they do not. History tells us that all free societies are vulnerable to dictatorial usurpers. The responsibility of a free people is eternal vigilance: a dismissive attitude toward doubters and dissenters is profoundly unpatriotic. This theme can be found in many of the most thoughtful quotes from America’s founding fathers: the continued ignorance of their words-of-warning is the only real threat to the future of America present in the world today.