http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg
Now take a look at the real hole again, which is in low resolution because it's been enlarged from a shot from very far up in the sky (could be a satellite image). Still, one can see that the central crater has a different shape than on the tampered ones. There are no long wings spans on either side. And that's why they had NBC and others distribute images with tree shading. Right? The tree shading indicates that they tampered with the images before distributing them.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1C.jpg
For proof, see the image below showing the hole from a camera on the ground. It's showing a SHORT depression for what we are to believe was the wing scar, which, as you can see, is too unreal to be a wing scar from a powerful nose dive. There is no way that a plane wing crashed there, but the insiders originally thought that a shabby job (by the excavator) was sufficient...because they thought no one would suspect the hoax or scrutinize the images presented to the news.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg
The real hole image above from way up has the following caption under it: "P200058 - Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - uscourts.gov [hi-res]" (square brackets not mine). We may suppose that, for court purposes, they had to hand in the real, untampered image. This and other images above were borrowed from this photo gallery:
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html
Excavation of the site, by the government, began in days, destroying the original look of the hole in case anyone flew over to take a picture. No doubt, a no-fly zone over the area was in place. Therefore, all we have to go with are the government-supplied pictures. Or, put it this way, that if the media were allowed to fly over to take pictures, the photo gallery above would likely more than the two of images from planes/helicopters provided, which were the two taken within an hour apart (i.e. the two with the near-identical tree shading). I'd say you can call that government control, not free press. And it's media-winked government control too.
Below is the same hole from the same direction of the one taken along the ground, but a little further back and at an earlier time of the day (while the smoke was more pronounced). The depression was not formed on that day but was there already, as the green grass indicates. That is, some of the green grass is already sloping into the wing hole. It looks like the ground was simply scratched a little to make it look freshly disturbed. The reason for the shortness of the wing slice may have been due to the excavator' shovel incapable of reaching further with the machine positioned in the central hole. Plus, the central hole was required larger in order to have the excavator reach further out for the wing job. They could have used a larger excavator, but the perpetrators thought a shabby job would do the trick. Besides, the machine used may have been the largest one that the scrap yard had.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing2.jpg
In the aerial view, one can see that the hole starts smack at the side of a road so that any clean up of the excavator's tracks would have been fast and easy. Ask whether it was a coincidence that the plane would come down with one wing tip smack on the shoulder of a road. But there is another problem; they didn't make the hole wide enough, thinking that no one would bother to measure it. The image below is one from someone who did bother. They have the plane in the hole along with trucks on the side of the street, showing that the wing span of Flight 93 should have crossed completely across the road:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93ToScale.jpg
If the plane in the image above is correctly to scale (anyone can easily verify whether it's correct or not), then the wings of the aircraft would have bounced off the road, made a mark/gash in the road, and wing parts should be nearby and scattered along the road, but none of this is the reality at this site.
Take the image above showing the crater around the green grass, and find how many body lengths there are from crater-edge to crater edge. I count about seven. Enlarge the image below and do the same measurement to find that the hole is now only about three or four human-body lengths across. Which images can we trust? It doesn't matter, because the very fact that tampering has been provided to the public from news people proves that we are not being treated with honesty.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Hole.jpg
In a court of law, the word of a policeman against a defendant is taken as evidence. It doesn't matter whether the policeman is lying; it's taken as evidence until someone can prove that a lie was told. In the same way, the word of the FBI at the crash site is taken as legal evidence. If the FBI says that it dug up plane parts at the crash site, it's taken as evidence. It can be used against anyone claiming that no plane crashed there. It doesn't matter that the FBI had total control of the site, the fact that many FBI people agree with the same storyline is the evidence that a judge must abide by. But the pieces of plane that were dug out have a voice too, and they will tell the truth, which is why the FBI would never want to go to court on this matter. The pieces of the plane that were dug out were not from Flight 93, and the FBI likely did not allow any independent person to inspect these pieces. They likely did a shabby job by providing wrong pieces, because the entire affair was a major headache for them. It is actually tough to be a law-enforcement agency while breaking the law as they did. It corrupted them.
In a court case, the defendant would have the right to prove that the FBI was lying by seeking to convince the judge that no plane landed there. An engineer could easily calculate how deep the aluminum housing (fuselage) of a passenger jet, coming in at a nose dive upon any type of soil system, would penetrate into the ground before finding complete resistance. Although a fuselage looks like a bullet, once its nose cone is compromised, it's nothing but an aluminum shell attached to a couple of floors. The point will be reached when the fuselage breaks away from the floors. Nothing in a plane is made heavier than needed to safely resist potential flight and landing stresses. The fuselage will not be attached to the floors with more metal than needed to fly safe. But, in any case, the aluminum is thin gauge, and will rip away easily from whatever holds it to the floor-joist system. Once the aluminum is ripped away from the heavier items to which its attached, it loses the plane's full momentum, and penetrates the ground as best it can on its own momentum. The aluminum will crumple while it penetrates, but will reach the point where, instead of piercing the ground, the fuselage will solely crumple. However, during crumpling, it's expected to break up into many pieces.
We all understand that, in a military-based hoax amounting to a headache of huge magnitude for the FBI, the less work they needed to do to clinch the hoax, the better. Trucking in 85 pieces of fuselage, many of which had to fit together at their tears, just to make the event look absolutely real, was out of the question. The masses had best start to be fooled a lot easier just to make the work of the FBI a lot easier. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Fuselage.jpg
I've never heard of an airplane disappearing completely or even partially into the soil. With this "new reality," think of how much cheaper it will be for globalists. Just call up an excavator for two hours, turn the soil a little, and, voila, a plane-crash site. Why even bother with any small debris, for this new reality can sink 100 percent of the plane, like a marble dropped into water. Come to think of it, how do we know that the U.S. military has not, prior to 9-11, faked other crashes by claiming near-complete disintegration of the plane?
Here's some news-media quotes borrowed from the killtown webpage below (has covered the Flight-93 crash extensively):
"Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.' - Washington Post (05/12/02)
"The plane, too, was decimated. The largest pieces were the size of suitcases, the smallest the size of dimes.
"It just looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky," Miller said." - Houston Chronicle (09/08/02)
..."Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a 'briefcase.' 'If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash,' he continued. The debris is very, very small.'"
"'The best I can describe it is if you've ever been to a commercial landfill. When it's covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal.' - Pittsburgh Live (09/14/01)"
"'If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap,' said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. 'There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces.' - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)"
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/debris.html#scrap_yard
And that's why the large piece of fuselage wasn't likely there from day one. They had planned to do a shabby job with no one asking questions. They just wanted us to believe that the plane disintegrated. But they turned their headache into a death-wish. Poor slobs, FBI, poor slobs.
The webpage continues:
'The mangled heap of iron and steel actually belongs to Rollock Inc., a scrap metal business owned and managed by the father-and-son team of Tony and Chris Kordell of Bedford County.
The property they purchased three years ago abuts the crash site, which lies just several yards beyond the perimeter of the Kordells' land.' - pittsburghlive.com (09/11/02)
(*Remember that the only reported witness to actually see Flight 93 reportedly crash was Lee Purbaugh, who was ex-Navy and only on his 2nd day of work at Rollock.)
It sounds like he was "hired" just to act as a witness, which is how we can know all-the-more that Rollock was involved with this crime. There is no other explanation. The crime could not have taken place had not Rollock employees been a part of it. They were supposed to make the FBI's job easy. Instead, by their shabby job, they announced to the world that this was a hoax. If anyone's listening, that is.
The tampered image has the wing span nearly as large as that of Flight 93, meaning that the image had the gouge 125-150 feet long. But here's a news report that says otherwise:
Reporter: How big would you say that hole was?
Konicki: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20ft to 15ft long and probably 10ft wide [agrees with other witness above].
Reporter: What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash and...
Konicki: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees..." - FOX (09/11/01)
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crater.html
Broken trees? From what? They must have had a plan for the broken trees.
The page above has the hole with two people beside it that allows one to measure the top of the hole to about 20 feet wide, expected because that's roughly the width of a fuselage. But one side of the hole looks smooth, not machined, as though it had been there from an earlier time. The image is in good resolution and shows the wing scar, ech-hem, the joke, up close.
Apparently, judging by the report of killtown, no local person saw a pillar of smoke, nor a drenching of the soil with fuel, and no one said they smelled fuel. "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth,' Parsons reported. 'It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth.' - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)" Are we to be gullible enough to accept the storyline that the jet fuel went into the soil, fuel tanks and all? The alternative is to believe that the American government has conspiracy crews at all levels, and in all nooks, of American life. It was a little hard to come to terms with in the beginning, but I'm settled on it now. American history will never look the same again.
Even if you believe the other explanations, you need to grapple with this fuel problem. It's important as to how you will view the state of the global government at this time. If this crash was impossible, so was all of 9-11 an inside job. The perpetrators can't have it every way. The faster it was moving, the greater the chances, above 99 percent, that the fuel would burst into flames on the ground. No one really knows how fast the plane was moving, since it wasn't there, or because no one had a devise to measure its speed even if they did see it. The report that it was moving 500 mph or more is based on the need to explain a buried airplane showing no plane parts.
Some news reports tell of the soft soil in that area, and some claim that the land was recently backfilled. However, the softer the dirt, the deeper the crater. The crater was not deep at all when compared to craters of other crashes, and yet their argument is that the soil was softer than most soils. That doesn't work. I've just read the example of a dart shot into flour where, instead of making a large hole, there is barely any evidence of the dart's entry point. But dirt isn't flour, and no one I've read has given a prior example for such a dart-scenario accomplished between a crashing plane and dirt. When war missiles (very much like darts) hit the ground and explode, they cause craters, not the dart-flour effect. And Flight 93 supposedly exploded, according to the authorities who provided a video of a black, smoky cloud rising from the "crash site." But that video serves only to prove the hoax because, instead of a constant pillar of smoke from long-burning jet fuel, there is a short cloud burst only, as though from an explosion(s) by some other means, without the ignition of jet fuel. Apparently, the eye-witness at the scrap yard reported no pillar of smoke, and no one at seeing the site caught any such thing on video or camera. The best we saw in the provided images: no more smoke than would be caused by the burning of a bushel of wet weeds.
"When asked by a reporter: 'Any large pieces of debris at all?... Smoke? Fire?' 'Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke. No fire.'" It sounds like the smoke was very temporary, and for all we know, the smoke we see in the images was pasted to the scene. Why is there only one image of the plume of smoke at the initial explosion? Wouldn't the person who caught it on camera take more pictures to show the forthcoming pillar of smoke from the burning fuel? Yes, she would have, but no, she couldn't, because that would give away the hoax when no such pillar developed. Instead: "A large rising mushroom cloud was photographed within seconds after impact by Val McClatchey, who was nearly shaken off her couch by the crash [= insider giving false testimony], causing her to run out with her new digital camera and without aiming, snapped the only known photograph of the explosion before dropping her camera." Ah, I see. Who can prove otherwise? The people who failed to see the column of smoke. For, if an explosion took place at the crash, there is no way to avoid igniting the fuel that would have splashed out when the tanks broke up upon impact.
Who are you going to believe, McClatchey, or your good senses? Don't you know that a plane moving over 500 mph cannot avoid broken gas tanks? Do you think that the tanks went into the "spongy" soil unbroken? What spongy soil. That occurs only in forests, and then such peat is very shallow, anyway, in inches, not dozens of feet. But some use the example of water, far more easily to push aside than spongy soil: "Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if 'the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon'." Soil is not water, but, yes, we get the message. But do you really think that the soil you see in the images, filled with stones and rocks, could act like water around a spoon? Hello?
"A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane 'went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.'" Obviously, the person who excavated the place at the request of the FBI was an insider. Obviously. He had been prepared in advance, and he didn't speak his own words, but the authorities put the words into his mouth that he should speak. And so the storyline has been that the soil, once forced away from the plane's sides due to the massive force of entry, instead of splashing outward all around, came back toward the plane so fast, like water around a spoon, that the fuel didn't have a chance to explode due to lack of oxygen. But what caused the McClatchey cloud of smoke, then?
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html
A spoon dropped gently into coffee doesn't have a tank of jet fuel to blow the water away in all directions. A spoon or dart doesn't break into small pieces like the skin of an aircraft. A proper comparison cannot use something stronger than a plane, such as a dart or spoon, and something less resistant than the soil, such as flour of water. To make the comparison properly, one needs to fire a tube into flour the thickness of tin foil. You now have a hard time imagining such a tube penetrating more than a miniscule amount before crumpling. The aircraft tube has no sharp point, or hard, solid nose, as does a dart, for moving aside the "flour." You are being deceived when they cause you to view the passenger jet like a spoon or dart.
And the rocky soil at the crash site was not dry flour. In fact, they forgot to mention the many rocks that you see in the dirt that are a fundamental part of the "flour." Soil has some organic cementing agents mixed with humidity that packs extraordinarily strong. The more you compress soil, the harder it tends to resist penetration. You shouldn't imagine an indestructible nose cone as it paves the way through this rocky soil for the rest of the tube. Nor should we ignore the hard objects and materials with flat faces within the plane, not predicted to penetrate rocky soil like a dart through dry flour. Try shooting a dart into humid flour to see whether such substance will flow back around the penetrated dart. The humidity makes the flour stick to itself, which is definitely the case for soil, so that it won't tend to flow back to close the entry hole.
The illusion of dirt flowing back upon itself is facilitated by the images of the soil that we see, where the soil was freshly overturned with an excavator. It gives the impression that the dirt could roll back to close the hole, but in fact, a plane ramming into that soil would compact it all around, and in the meantime would splash much of it some distance away, depending on how wet (i.e. soft and sticky) it was. We saw no dirt or rocks splashed away because the perpetrators were lazy, thinking that no one would ask questions. But rocks are not sticky no matter how wet, and they are crusty so that anything striking them will send them flying. We saw not even one rock on the grass outside the hole.
We can't ignore the velocity of the plane. One could appeal to the plane's high velocity in acting like a bullet cleanly penetrating dirt, but there is no precedent for a plane entering dirt like a bullet through soft butter. That's because the skin of a plane is not like a solid bullet. As per the two planes that reportedly entered the twin towers, the perpetrators wanted you to view them like a bullet through butter rather than a thin tube penetrating thick, steel columns.
How thick is the aluminum housing of a large passenger plane? I don't know. I can't find the answer online in the way I can't find many things about aircraft that can be used against the 9-11 hoax. But regardless of the gauge, the aluminum would be blown apart by the fuel. here's a powerful argument to add: "Subsequent studies by the EPA of the crash site have confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been pervasive had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there." In this case, the authorities could not persuade the EPA to provide a false / distorted / slanted statement on their behalf.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/
It is amazing how many pieces of plane parts turned up in the forest across the street from the hole while no such parts are visible around the hole. Why should that be? Well, for one thing, any outsider might have driven by the road BEFORE the crash was slated to begin, and seeing plane parts around the hole, it would have spoiled the operation. Instead, they littered the hole area with small items not visible, or not interesting, from the road. That makes too much sense not to be the truth. And here's an insider who mentions the pieces of fuselage in the forest:
Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said [neither can I].
"I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker.
The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said.
A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods.
http://www.unitedflight93.com/
A plane 40 feet above your head is an awesome thing along with the ground-shaking landing just 900 feet away (they may have exaggerated that distance) = one second away. What caused the "mushroom of flame"? Did only a small amount of jet fuel escape the tanks? How could a small amount of jet fuel, escaped from the tanks, explode rather than just becoming a flame on the ground? Or did someone plant an explosive device? How could jet fuel reach across the road to the forest -- sideways from the plane's path -- but not forward to the open field ahead of the plane? Or, why did most-everything happen in the forest?
The following can help explain which scenario is the correct one: "Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. 'The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees." Oh, I see, clothes hanging in the forest, but no clothes in the open field, or on the shoulder, or on the street, only where they could be hidden from drivers-by.
"Rick King, 42, of Shanksville, was behind the wheel of the first fire truck to arrive at the crash scene...heard Flight 93 scream overhead, seen a massive fireball light up the sky and felt an explosion rock the entire town of Shanksville...But besides a burning landing-gear tire, smoldering branches in the nearby WOODS [caps mine] and a few brush fires, there was little to indicate a jetliner had just crashed, he says."
Let's tackle some other nearby residents, workers and eye-witnesses, trying to determine which of them were the deliberate liars, and to check for inconsistencies. It seems to be an overwhelming fact that there was an explosion with fire and smoke. Granted.
Ten miles away, at a warehouse near Berlin, employee Don Miller and co-workers felt their building shake [how low is a plane when the building shakes?].
"It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane.
"Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that."
This is a tough one. The reason for such a claim can be to "prove" to the masses that this was no ordinary flight, i.e. could be none other than Flight 93 in terrible trouble. The only way that it could have been flying upside down is where it was a military craft like you'd see at an air show. But no one in this list of witnesses has reported what looked like a military craft. It's important to note how low the plane was while ten miles away. In my opinion, however, the perpetrators would not have been flying that low where the goal was to fly low only over Shanksville, to do a fly-over. Still, we can use Mr. Miller's testimony against others, for example, Terry Butler (from Stoystown Auto Wreckers at the time) who claims the plane "dropped out of the clouds" before turning over a ridge of trees and crashing a second afterward. He didn't see the crash; he only heard the "crash," which was merely an explosive device. If he's a true and sincere witness, then he seems to contradict the story of Don Miller. That is, it seems more credible that the plane would drop from the clouds only when approaching Shanksville.
Does a plane come out of the clouds upside down? Mr. Butler claims to have seen the entire flight from out of the clouds, except for one second after it went over the ridge. But he said nothing of a plane flying upside down "for a few seconds [to be followed by] a nose dive". Instead, he said that it banked to the right. If it had flipped upside down, he would have said so. It is a little suspicious, however, that Butler used the "flip" word: "...it just went flip to the right and then straight down." "Flip to the right" is not usually taken to mean "flipped upside-down," but is a figure of speech to indicate unexpectedness and/or deliberation in making a right turn. Still, one wonders whether he was part of the insiders who were being told the flip word a lot. The fact that Butler has the plane turning sharp and down into a nose dive likewise makes me suspicious. He was about three miles from the crash site. Did he really see it all that way?
I do believe that a plane went through that area, otherwise there would have been an abundance of locals claiming to hear nothing. But I don't think they would ask the pilot to do a quasi-nose dive with a passenger jet to feign a crash-about-to-happen. The option wherein they used a military jet, one that looked as much as possible like a passenger jet, is not out of the question. If they had it flying low and near the speed of sound, no one might get a close enough look to make out the type of craft.
At the map below (you might need to zoom in), the crash site is at the Memorial.
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stoystown+Auto+Wreckers/@40.096441,-78.93995,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x80d7209855b10003
The map should be showing the location of Stoystown Auto Wreckers. Note the flight path from the wreckers to the memorial, in a south-eastward direction. The viewer, Mr. Butler, for example, was looking at he tail end of the plane moving away from him, and the crash was three miles off. Is it really true that he could see the plane do a nose dive from that distance? Only if it was relatively high in the sky, but not if it was hugging the tree lines. That may explain why this particular witness choose to have the plane drop from the clouds, because no one in his area would believe him if his testimony agreed with others, where the plane was so low it shook buildings.
Back to the scrap-yard worker (at Rollock), who was interviewed some minutes after his first testimony (mentioned above), when he said: "Purbaugh describes the crash as "just like a big mushroom cloud." He says when it hit, it 'shook the ground, rolled over in some way and then collapsed'..." It hit the ground and then rolled over in some way??? That's got to be a mistake. But he's the only person who saw the plane hit the ground, and in this case, it says he was only 200 yards away, not 300. I mean, this testimony is the best anyone has of what happened at ground zero, and he says the plane rolled over AFTER it hit. How can that be reconciled with a smooth dart penetrating flour and becoming covered over again???
I'm sure that I can explain the contradiction correctly: this false witness never saw any plane hit, and he was supposed to say something like it had rolled over on its back before striking the ground, but screwed up and put the roll-over AFTER the landing.
Here's another entry: "Minutes later, the plane crashed in rural Somerset County, about 20 miles away. 'It was like an atomic bomb hit," said John Walsh, 72,..." An "atom bomb" from 20 miles away is an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? I don't think he heard a thing, especially as the fuel tanks didn't explode while the dart just entered smooth into the soft, buttery, newly-backfilled, spongy dirt that had the nature of coffee enveloping a spoon.
Here's another account of Miller's testimony:
Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground...As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene [who would have been so busy elsewhere at the time that they needed to drive away from this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle?]...
Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires [nothing blazing extraordinarily, apparently]. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers [clearly, nothing blazing extraordinarily] they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department.
...What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later.
Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we'll save that for later.
...Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next.
The webpage above shares the story of the sighting of a small white plane at the "crash site" seconds before the explosion went off. I suppose it's possible that his plane detonated an explosive device.
Here's a testimony to be trusted because it shares what the perpetrators would not have coached their false witnesses to say: "Laura Temyer of Hooversville...'I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.'" There were others who reported the engines going quiet briefly before the explosion, and so I think we can chalk up that item on the side of the real facts. In another testimony of Laura's, her thumps were called "booms."
Here now is a thud sound:
Viola Saylor of Lambertsville was outside talking to her sister.
"We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar."
She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground.
"All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud."
Once again we see, the engines went quiet. One scrap-yard worker said he heard the plane coming in for 10-15 seconds, which amounts to four or more miles away, but here in Viola's testimony, the sound didn't start until the plane was overhead. This may indicate a soft glide down from cloud levels, with some engine roar for the fly-over across ground zero so that a soft glide afterward will get the plane further away. It's obvious that the plane had to go quiet, by design, for the explosion. It is of obvious importance that the plane should not be heard by anyone after the explosion(s). But once far enough from ground zero, it would have accelerated (quietly) and slipped away through a pre-determined path (with sparsest population?).
The webpage from which the eyewitness reports were taken has this remark:
Some of the conspiracy believers claim there was no crash in the field and that the impact crater was faked. Yes, really!
Well then, if there was not a plane crash, and no deaths, which means no plane was shot down, which means . . . it was all a fake? If this were true, people are being paid to pretend they lost relatives on the flight! HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE GETTING??
http://www.unitedflight93.com/
I don't know. You'd have to ask the people getting paid.
The writer then goes on to say: "The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces." We can forgive him/her because it wasn't generally known at first that there was no fuel explosion. Nor was there any unburned fuel found on-site, though tests were conducted to find fuel contamination. We can also forgive him/her because it is hard to come to terms with a conspiracy of this magnitude. But if, after the obvious has been explained, he/she doesn't listen, then he/she is in danger of becoming a wicked-government tool. It can't have a good ending for anyone.
This writer is trying their best but is really coming up shy of reality because he/she is convinced the plane landed there. "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air." The writer is trying to explain how some parts got into the forest or the pond, or eight miles away, but fails to see what's before the eyes in the close-up pictures, where small fragments litter the over-turned dirt but do not appear on the adjacent, undisturbed soil. It seems that their inability to believe in a faked crash makes them draw back from focusing hard enough on the undisturbed soil to see what it's saying to them.
A fuel-tank explosion requires a sweeping plot of devastation the likes of which is missing in the photos presented to us. It's actually quite incredible how easily we humans can be deceived. It could have been me; it could have been you. Virtually every truther was deceived, at first. That's because we trusted. We were guilty of nothing but trusting our fellow man. "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away." I've just got to shake my head.
How does the writer envision such a magnificent force while failing to see the undisturbed soil just six inches past the crater? One can even argue that small rocks still on the GRASS should not be there after a massive explosion. I make my share of stupid mistakes when not fully attentive to things, but in this case, if one wants to speak on a massive explosion, there is no way to be inattentive to that grass growing as far as into the wing scar, because the fuel tanks were in the wings. Just look at this tall grass:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg
They have the center of the hole charred, but the fuel tanks were in the wings, yet the part where the wing scar is claimed to be has tall grass. There's very sloppy work.
Plus, how could an explosion send all of those metal fragments onto the over-turned soil, but send none on the undisturbed soil? Did the explosion have eyes? Shouldn't we see fragments on the green grass too? Clearly, there was no explosion at the crash site. It's not necessary that the perpetrators caused their explosion(s) on top of "crash site," or, if they did, the explosion was directed upwards alone for maximum effect in the sky i.e. for maximum visibility from people far off. I have yet to read anyone that says the fire was prolonged. No one snapped a picture of fire.
The writer needs to remove his explosion argument lest people take him for a ninny. Or put it this way, that if I have a small camp fire on the grass, whether it's wet or not, the fire starts to creep through the grass as it dries, and one needs to be attentive to keep the fire from spreading. Moreover, some grass near the fire wilts noticeably, but we see no fire-creep in the grass, nor wilting, at a location that supposedly had tanks of jet fuel burning high into the sky for a considerable time.
It is clear that the FBI did not allow people to take images of the location, or we would have a lot more to judge by. Perhaps even the four or five pictures that are available were taken by outsiders that were not supposed to get out. That is, the insider plot may have been to keep the public from seeing the green grass, for it makes no sense that they would permit the grass to remain. We can be sure that they are seeking an Internet law or rule that forbids the common people from copying images from news sights. I have seen that already.
The question on how the explosion was performed is a good one. Perhaps it launched from the forest, explaining the forest on fire, and some tree damage. The small white plane may have caused it.
On the plane debris and body parts scattered about, it's plain that it was planted, or one would see some of it around the crater. Some debris miles away turned up at the same general spot, as though the explosion was playing golf, seeking to drive it to one spot alone. There are various theories on that part of this story, and we should not ridicule those who try to explain it. The ridicule belongs to the ones who put this part of the plot together. They had paper eight miles from the crash site, which looks like an attempt to feign a mid-air explosion...from the bomb that the terrorists supposedly had.
It can be seen in various plane crashes that all fuel cannot be instantly consumed during the explosion. The explosion spreads the fuel out so that it burns slowly wherever it lands. There is not sufficient oxygen to consume the entire tanks of gas all at once in a small volume of space. Therefore, as the fire in Pennsylvania did not burn for hours, there was no jet-fuel explosion. The writer is in danger of altering his/her sense of physics reality. From now on, writers such as this are in danger of completely misinterpreting the physics of a plane crash, just as the perpetrators would have them. With educators submitting to the likes of these perpetrators, reality will be distorted in a number of areas.
The writer continues: "The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away." That depends on whether the witness(es) can be trusted who say they felt it ten miles away. To shun the possibility of false witnesses is unwise. The plot could not have worked so well without them. The writer himself/herself is a victim of the false witnesses.
On the page below, the story on Flight 1771 (1987) sounds a lot doubtful. The plane was reported at extremely high speed (approximately 700 mph), extremely steep angle of descent, with all plane parts on the obliterated side, but with a crash hole only two feet deep and four feet long. ??? The crash came with a suicide message, recovered miraculously, and the police even found the gun of the man who supposedly brought the plane down. It doesn't sound logical for such a plane to cause a hole that shallow in a grassy hill. No engines or heavy beams are visible in the two pictures of the crash site. At one time, no one would have asked any questions, but now is no longer "at one time." "Unburnt paper was flying everywhere [easy to spread around by hand] as small aircraft fuel fires [easy to set up] burned on the ground [why not a pillar of smoke?]. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 [of 43] of the passengers were never identified [or they didn't exist in the first place]. All aboard, including Burke and Thomson, were killed." Providing most of those things was do-able, but providing a large hole with a machine may not have been. Two feet deep and four feet long is do-able quietly by shovel.
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html
Faking plane crashes for various reasons may have a history in the several of decades. If the public would buy a two-foot deep hole from a passenger liner moving 700 mph at a 70-degree angle, it was butter in their fingers. One possibility: Flight 1771 was stolen (i.e. never crashed), the airliner collected the insurance by pre-design, and the passenger list was fabricated.
At the page above, go down to the box having the plane, Canberra Mk.2 WD991, because it had a crashing speed comparable to the speed claimed for Flight 93, and a nose-dive angle of 80 degrees (we are lost for words). The debris field (image below) shows a large burn mark in the field, as expected of a real crash, and there is plane-piece debris scattered for many planes lengths from the crash spot, as expected, neither of which was the case for Flight 93. The visible pieces are all white, suggesting fuselage pieces, and although they look small, the distance of the camera suggests that these pieces can be as large as four feet long. The high number of them over a wide area is what a person expects, who has a grasp of reality not shifted by the 9-11 goons. The scattered debris is what a normal person expects from a "disintegrating" plane on contact with the ground, because we have never heard before of any plane disintegrating fully into pieces the size of nuts and bolts, or vaporizing altogether apart from hot fire. These concepts are becoming the new reality if the goons can get away with it.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Canberra.gif
The fact that 9-11 catapulted the American military into the Middle East describes the nature of the humanity involved in the Middle East. You can't have much confidence in that nature when you see 9-11 as a colossal falsification fed to the American people themselves, while falsely accusing an Arab peoples who were not involved. This has the stink of Nazi's who kill masses brutally and sleep well. This plays very well to the topics of End Times and Lake-of-Fire punishment. It seems that the masses who support these Middle-East intruders will be lumped into those deserving the Lake of Fire. If at first Christians were deceived by the Bush invasion of Iraq, there has been ample time, and ample opportunities, to get it right. If you know that all the nations will be gathered to the Middle East for the punishment of Armageddon, how could you, as FOX news does, or even as World Net Daily does, support the American intrusions into the Middle East. Is that wise, do you think? Whatever goodness American may have guided herself with in decades gone by, it's gone today.
In case the sorry job at the "crash" site" convinced some people that no plane came down, the perpetrators had some powerful jabs to their credibility prepared with eye-witnesses who spotted the plane coming down. Some of them heard the plane coming across their houses at low altitude, and as this reported plane took a path close to a street with many houses, one is forced to agree that a plane did fly that way. But was it Flight 93, that is the question? The hole at the scrap yard won't help with the answer. Some of the witnesses are expected to have been insiders who didn't technically lie when saying that they heard / saw a plane. On searching the story of Flight 93, you will come across reports of airplane fragments some six miles or more from the scrap yard, as well as body parts, but why assume it was Flight 93 that flew that way?
At the page below, you can read that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport (Ohio) early in the hoax. There was too much information reported about this incident to call it a mistake. The story was retracted for unknown reasons. In this report, there are terrorists aboard Flight 93, and the cockpit mic is left on unwittingly or, to put it another way, by design of the perpetrators, it was necessary that the public hear this fabricated conversation conducted by the faked terrorists on board. They said they had a bomb and were going to land the plane at the airport because they had secured all their demands from the United States. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday [that day, 9-11] at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93."
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/theories.html
One possible motive for this part of the plot is that some leading perpetrators felt that site at Pennsylvania was too shabby to go ahead with the plan. So, instead, they were going to land the plane and make a different scenario out of it. Others wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania plot. The sky is the limit here as to the possible theories, but very apparently, the plane landed, and passengers were evacuated; I can't see how the mayor could have had that wrong. Someone contacted him to say that the plane had been evacuated, or was in the process of being evacuated. I don't think we can argue that he made that story up; he must have received it in a phone call / email. Have we got that right? And this helps to explain why no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and why the Cleveland story was retracted after the Pennsylvania crash made the news.
Flight 93 wasn't scheduled for Cleveland, and so when United Airlines identified the hi-jacked plane as Flight 93, by what chance could they have had that wrong? The Pennsylvania story had not yet broken on the news i.e. United Airlines did not (was not supposed to) know that Flight 93 would be reported hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania, meaning that when United had Flight 93 at Cleveland, there could be no mistake about it being Flight 93. Their computerized communication systems indicated Flight 93. They didn't dream up the number "93," nor should we argue that they meant some other number but blurted "93" by mistake. Nor should we assume that they communicated some other number but that someone at the other end heard / read it wrongly as 93. These things would be possible if the number had not been reported as 93, but the fact that Flight 93 would be involved, that morning, in a terrorist-heist scenario in Pennsylvania, convinces me that United had correctly conveyed the landing of Flight 93.
In another news report concerning the landing: "The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside." That latter claim could indicate the story as desired / reported by those particular perpetrators who wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania hoax. They needed a plane filled with passengers, and perhaps the plot was going to have the hijackers lifting off from Cleveland with passengers in the plane. Instead, they opted to retract the story, deny the landing, and reported the plane doing a U-turn, with hijackers steering it, while in the air near Cleveland. "The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15." How does anyone make such a thing up by mistake, then report it to the mayor? If the mayor was one of the insiders, then he was of the camp that wanted 93 to land. Apparently, the story was going to be that the authorities had successful negotiations with the terrorists.
Later in the day, an FBI spokesman entered the news to say that Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland, not 93. But it was the FBI who took control in Pennsylvania, and so how far can we trust this new number? Zero. The FBI quickly took over the story that the media was not to tell, and the FBI lied to the public for the sake of saving the scrap-yard hoax. After half of America was grappling for some time with the wave of "truthers," which has become a sort of dirty word to many, and as the pesky truthers put heads together and got down to some serious business, this came out: "Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly 'crashed' in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/
It looks like the plane landed, released the passengers (into confinement?), then took off again for some unknown destination. This plane was seen again in active service (business as usual). Before much longer, the truthers knew they had said too much, that they had the perpetrators at their mercy, and that the time would fast approach for a killing fest if they continued to point fingers. It's predictable that many active truthers and potential-active truthers went quiet(er) once the cat was fully out of the bag. But the perpetrators' worst enemies are those who feign being on the government side. These were created by the perpetrators, by fear, but this very thing has made them the silent enemy that, at any moment, can quietly do damage. Lots of it. Amongst these hushed people are media barons, leading journalists, mayors, judges, police chiefs, you name it, all out there wanting revenge and new/different government leaders. The pendulum must swing the other way, and everyone will reap what they sow.
From Griffin's analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes.
More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006:
(1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville "crash", Todd Beamer's last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer's call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government's own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND!
(2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls.
(3) Lisa Jefferson [Verizon operator], who reportedly took Beamer's call, failed to mention the phrase "Let's roll" in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer's voice.
(4) In fact, the FBI [at court] delayed bringing out the story of "Let's Roll" and the passengers "fighting back" and apparently only did so to stop the story of a [military] flight shoot-down from gaining momentum.
(5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air.
(article above).
The things that should be coming to your mind are the many ways for the government to give false impressions to the public, and that these tactics were not new on 9-11, but well-practiced for decades prior. If nothing more, it has become far more costly for the authorities to conduct hoax's because lazy / sloppy schemes can no longer find success. The Boston Marathon, very sloppy, only added more heads to the truther camps. I probably wouldn't have covered these hoax's except that they have the propensity to play to prophetic themes. A new description of the American and British governments has become necessary while we look forward to fulfilled prophecy. The small taste of "martial law" in Boston, set up merely to find one young, framed man, is indicative of things to come. It wasn't by chance. It was a trial balloon. It showed that the police are the enemy of the public, which is the definition of a police state. A police state is not one that has a police force, but one where the police are in conflict with the people. It can be caused by unruly people, or by corrupt government. Boston's trial balloon was not from the unruly people, leaving only one option: a corrupt Obama.
The article above has made a couple of good points concerning the cell-phone calls supposedly from 9-11. Obviously, these calls have one purpose, to fashion in your mind the things that the perpetrators wanted us to believe was the reality. But what's wrong with this particular conversation:
Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."
How many times do you tell your mom your last name just in case she doesn't know who you are by your first name alone? I'd laugh except that I'd rather celebrate the jailing of the perpetrators. The Jailor is Coming. The Big Jail has been Prepared. If the perpetrators are not afraid of man due to their overwhelming powers, they should be afraid of Jesus.
My position on 9-11 was not rooted in a desire to smear the government or the FBI. I simply and genuinely came to see that no planes landed either at the Pentagon or the scrap-yard site. It is a natural extension of that belief to point fingers at the government and FBI, charging them with the faking of plane crashes. There is nothing more complicated, and certainly nothing diabolical, about that position. It is a logical position: if there were no planes, the government faked the crashes. It's not my horror story, but theirs. I'm just explaining it the best I can; they are the ones who need to answer to it. Instead, they mainly ignore the people who point fingers at them, thus securing their future enemy. They continue to be viewed, and charged, as diabolical operators. They have brought that upon themselves, and will need to deal with it.
![http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCorcoran2.jpg The image above is one of several from the webpage below. The one that follows the above is similar, where she stands in a pool of blood, the important factor being that both her shoes have a drenching of blood, not just from her one injured leg. How does that happen over about a minute of time? Try gouging your right leg with a steak knife, say two inches deep, then walk around for a minute to see if blood finds your left shoe. That's one way to snap yourself to your senses if you still trust what the government says on this issue. In my opinion, no one seeing all that blood loss would continue to remain alone without calling for help. The man in grey cap beside her looks completely useless for helping anyone, which can be explained only because this was not reality. These images are available at the video presented earlier: http://letsrollforums.com/boston-bombing-victim-sydney-t29591.html?s=5cfbdaa4dbd50c2069a4a35f1f3d1d6d&p=247606 Back to the long video, Flash Mob Fools the World. See the 3:43 point where the video owner claims, "This is a pyrotechnic launch tube." It's worded authoritatively, as though there is no doubt about it. I suppose such tubes come in all shapes and sizes, but, certainly, the perpetrators would not release an image with the bald man carrying such a device, would they? I can't argue that this particular video was taken by a non-insider, because it shows Jeff on the sidewalk, though I choose to believe that he was pasted into injury scenes. There is the possibility that this event was not a false flag for securing some political achievement, but serving only to alleviate Obama's Benghazi problem. In that case, it can be argued that the perpetrators deliberately added in suspicious material for to make this a giant conversation piece amongst the Obama haters. In the pink-jacket image with a timing at roughly 30 seconds, i.e. not many seconds after we see the "pyrotechnic device," the same bald man has approached near to, and is looking over, the bomb spot, which seems logical if he indeed had a pyrotechnic device that caused the blast (not necessarily an explosion) and smoke. I can see nothing in his right hand in this image, however. A few seconds later in this Tang shot, there is again nothing showing in his hand. I need to say that many images I've got are of low-resolution, and perhaps my computer automatically loads them with low resolution while yours does not. Perhaps you can see something in his hand, but I can't. About a half minute after the images above, we find the one below, with the same bald man, and he's headed toward the bomb spot looking like he wants to check out its smoking condition. That makes sense. We now see something clearly at his right hip (though no hand or arm is showing), looking like a camera lens (similar cylindrical shape as per the "pyrotechnic device"). However, the strap-like part does not match with what we see as the pyrotechnic device in the video. It looks like tampering to make it look like a camera lens on this occasion. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCowboyFence.jpg In the next image in the video, at 3:51, part of his hand is showing, but as it's not all showing, we might get the impression that another man's foot was pasted in to hide the rest of his hand, and whatever he may be carrying. It doesn't look like he's carrying anything. It seems doubtful that, as the original plot, he was to carry a pyrotechnic device around for this long. The image at the 3:51 point is more than two minutes after the blast. The foot may have been pasted to hide the fact that he didn't have a camera. It would have been necessary to hide this because they pasted a camera to him in an earlier image. They now want us to think that he has a camera in his hand, in other words, that's blocked by the foot. However, I have never seen this man, who appears in several images, taking pictures at any time. Therefore, the argument that he has a pyrotechnic device in his hand at 3:43 is a good one, but it doesn't tell us whether the person taking the video was an insider or not. We can ask why the full video was not released. I have yet to see any full video from the several media people covering the event. On to the 4:58 point, where the bald man can be seen coming in on the extreme left. His right hand is out of the picture. The device in his hand then appears at 5:00, but at 5:01, his hand is still showing, but the device is not. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for him to position the hand in any way to completely block that large device. There are two options here: 1) he threw the device over the railing a second after we see it at 5:00; 2) it was initially pasted at 5:00, or deleted at 5:01. At 5:02, upon his next step, the video camera supposedly goes up so that his hand is obscured by the window frame. After not showing at 5:03, we are led to assume that he's the bald-headed man (looks too chubby) with sunglasses, at 5:03. I'm a little suspicious here as to how they have his one hand raised to make it appear he just put on his sunglasses, and then there is what looks like a strap around his right hand, arguing for a camera rather than the device. Although there is some compelling evidence here that he threw the device over the railing, why didn't they just "rub out" the device from his hand, if it really was the tool that caused the blast? Back at 3:43, when he's shown with the device, note how his gait doesn't look natural. Besides, he's leaning too much for a mere walk. Perhaps he was on a semi-run. Perhaps he's pasted. The railing is in full view, and his arm could be in the very process of swinging the device over it. At the 3:43 point, there is an area of sidewalk showing where Mr Nopants will go lie in a massive stain of red dye, but, as you can see, there is no red on the sidewalk as Bald Man comes through. The Tang image above (timed at 36 seconds after the blast) has Lime Stripe lying on the sidewalk a little further away than Mr. Nopants. In the video, Lime Stripe is on her feet to a point within about 25 seconds maximum before her lying-down position beyond Nopants (this was not her final resting place). That is, she only has 25 seconds max to make that mess of "blood" that we see under and beside Nopants. Wikipedia has an image (below) that I timed at 28 seconds after the blast, but Lime Stripe is not in it. Blondy and Nopants have already changed positions, but it had to be within the last 10 seconds. They are fully in their positions, not at all in the midst of getting into them. That's pretty fast moving for injured people who thereafter sit/lie for minutes until wheeled away. http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonWikipedia.jpg Above, look at how Bald Man looks like he's running into the heap of actors. He's certainly not taking normal strides, once again. He's even off-level again, as one who turns while at a fast pace, suggesting perhaps that he's pasted in. The view to the spot where Lime Stripe will be, in less than some eight seconds, is blocked by two people, perhaps deliberately so that we are led to believe that she is lying there at this time, when perhaps she could be producing that river of blood along the patio railing. She may have made a mistake with that one because it brought attention to that door. Some seven or eight minutes after the blast, a few men were ganged around the door, perhaps asking who on the inside was responsible for that blood. Or, as we see a woman in a purple top in a stretcher outside that door, perhaps the river of blood and she were planned together i.e. she was inside the door all along. On the other hand, though I can't recall with certainty, this woman with purple top may have been the one inside the railing area, at the corner nearest the door, but therefore not inside the door. Perhaps the river of blood was made on her behalf, or even be she herself, yet the RT video spoiled that plot by showing the line of blood beyond the point where the person inside the railing lay. To see the position inside the railing area, enlarge this image (1:57 minutes after the blast): http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg There is also the issue of Lime Stripe standing in a pool of blood (seen clearly at 5:17). She's looking down at the blood, but she doesn't ask anyone beside her for help. None of the people beside her at her scene when she's lying down. No one where she's standing helped her over to where she lay down prior to the 36-second mark. Next, to the flames that were showing a second or two after the blast. This looks like a smoke-making machine. Let's start at the 2:23 point, where we see a man in white shirt and black backpack at the top-right. He looks completely calm, like he knows what's happening. The "bomb" has already gone off, and just, so that, in a real situation, he should have a bewildered facial expression. He simply stands there, and the woman in blue beside him looks just as casual. Elsewhere in this image, the actors are playing their role. The blast has blown the pants and sleeve off of the one farce who comes running through, meaning that he had to have the opportunity to get dressed like that before the blast went off. It indicates that the place was stacked with actors, coaches, and insiders of other kinds. It can be gleaned that, at 2:26, someone is pouring red "dye" (unknown chemical) out of a coke bottle at the spot where Mr. Burgundy appears from the start. At 2:31, it does appear that a man in white coat has his coat seared with heat from the flame that has begun to appear. There is a good argument here for the authenticity of this scene, and even for the argument that the one taking the video is not an insider, unless we can come up with a good motive for the insiders showing this flame deliberately Judging by the position of Mr. Burgundy over the woman with a double band on her sleeve, as the smoke clears, she is not the one who formed the blood stain, for she is trapped between his legs. Therefore, either Mr. Burgundy poured out the dye, or Blondy. I don't see an alternative suspect. Blondy is in red and black, colors of choice for someone involved in a blood-stain operation, in case they get some blood on their clothing where it shouldn't be. Mr. Burgundy spends far too much time doing nothing for the woman under him, as though he needs to waste time making it look good. It makes no sense that he tries to get her up on her feet when she's not trying to get up herself. Bad acting job gets an F. The first we see of the man with what looks like a slightly-charred white coat is at 2:23. He's kneeling or, better yet, thrusting himself away, and looking away from where the flame will appear momentarily...which makes sense if the flame was too dangerous at first to face. He may have been involved in setting the flame afire. This is not the spot where smoke rises for a few minutes near a hole in the slat fence. This may be the bang device, the bang and smoke device, or the smoke-alone device. I don't have any knowledge in this regard. A split second later, Mr Burnt Coat is not visible, suggesting that he's turned around quickly. Why? Did he know that whatever needed a turning away lasted only a second or two? Lime Stripe appears smack beside this device, where it's best to start spraying her dye before the smoke clears too much. A bald head appears clear at 2:31. Was the window frame placed deliberately to block the flame device at 2:31? At 2:51, we see that the bald head wears sunglasses, and he's looking smug and directly at the flame device. It turns out to be Bald Man. When we see the device in his hand up close (3:50), it appears to have a built-in handle that would NOT wrap around the outside of his hand, as is the black strap-like thing on his hand at 5:03. The device at 3:50 looks like it has a handle that goes inside the palm, not expected to wrap around the outer hand. In the enlargement, note that there are two cylindrical tubes to the mystery device, for it now seems obvious that there were two detonation locations, one per tube. Were these Skinheads? If so, they wouldn't strike me as Zionists. I can see them trying to blame the Zionists, though. Fireman Plourde was almost bald, right? Another near-bald man runs past Mr. Plourde when he's shot carrying Victoria. He runs directly to Nopants, for he's in the RT video at Nopant's location. Did he give the sign to "mom" that her time to go to the street was at hand? "Mom" was at the store front about a dozen feet from Nopants. The third man in the Plourde image, wearing a gun, may also be near-bald (between haircuts?) by the looks of it. Mr. Burnt Coat starts to walk away, away from injury victims, at 2:52. Mom moves in to fill his spot. As later pictures reveal, there was no table set up there for making the flame and smoke, which must therefore have been purely from a hand-held device. Mom will end up in the same door as the "carpenter" goes for. That is, when the caption reads, "A large device is being removed," it looks like a carpenters tool case, the old-fashioned, wooden kind. At 2:59, a dark cap with light logo appears above the window frame, who turns out to be the one with the "tool box." He turns and goes straight for the door of a store. He doesn't look dressed like a carpenter, fixing a door, for example, prior to the explosion, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, why is he more interested in his thing than helping the needy / hurting / frightened / dying people? Come to think of it, the box that he picked up may have had a fire extinguisher, just in case. When all went well, the box was picked up and carried away. At 3:00, Bald man still stands there, uninterested in helping any injury victims, completely non-real. The rest of the crowd looks just as uninterested. At the upper left, there's a man in white coat with a drinking cup in his hand, casual, just watching, completely unreal for a situation some 5-10 seconds after an explosion. It's not like these people have been at explosions regularly every couple of years so that they should remain so clam. At 3:11, there could be something in Bald's right hand. My image is too faint to tell. In the next frame, his hand is obscured by the window frame, it figures. At 3:13, there are a set of legs with dark pants below the window frame, but they do not match up with anyone above the window frame. These legs are too straight-up to be of the man leaning over, and then too long and too-wrongly positioned to be the legs of Bald Man. Therefore, especially as they have Bald Man looking too chubby at 5:03, it's starting to appear that paste jobs of Bald Man have been part of this scam. They may have deleted him in places with a replacement. I followed Bald Man's movements from start-to-finish, until he's gone for good, back in 2013. He was way too large in this image below where he can be seen bending over the bomb spot still smoking slightly. His head is significantly larger than those closer to the camera. But why did they paste him looking over the bomb spot? http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg Not once did I see anything in his hand. That apparent camera lens that we saw must therefore have been pasted. How many others were pasted? For example, that man in all blue, who blocks the line of sight to Jeff, never does anything for anyone, but walks around in circles. Something like that could be a paste job. There is no sign of anything pertaining to Jeff's body in the picture. He is pasted in other images between this man in blue and Mr. Burgundy Coat. Between these two men, there is a third with yellow vest and white shirt. In a video by a Boston video, the latter can be seen walking over to his position, meaning that he walked right past the spot where Jeff is supposed to be. Right now, Jeff is supposed to be directly behind him, but, as you can see, this man with yellow vest has not engaged poor Jeff lying there without legs. Nor is there anyone else tending Jeff, and the time of this image is three seconds shy of two minutes after the blast. It is so obvious that Jeff isn't there that one should become terrible disturbed about the condition of Americans unable to see this for what it is. Even if you tell them what I just told you, they still have a hard time believing that all the major media are part of the insider gang. I am of course not trying to start a government uprising, as if I could, anyway. But the people of the world need to realize how rotten things have become in government, which is an indication of things to come, and things that have already come. The leaders responsible for events like this are an example of those who soak their bad attitudes everywhere, in social, business, and recreational life. Everyone knows that the American entertainment business has become a tool of corruption for the global masses. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. But there are those who deny the existence of the corruption in order to have more people drenched in it, and the deniers don't realize that a corrupted society will come round to bite them badly in many ways. They are determined to war against God, and to win, and I truly think that the likes of Obama have such an attitude. Why? Because they have done rotten things, and God remains quiet, no strike-back, no consequences, because He wants to show His people how far the godless will go in their corruption, until the time arrives suddenly for Payback. That's how I see it. Mr. Burgundy is essentially beside Jeff, but has not called anyone to tend to Jeff. Mr. Burgundy himself should be tending to Jeff, of course, since the woman he's dealing with merely has a gouge in one leg. He could call anyone over to help her while he goes over to Jeff, since he's acting as though he cares so much. But when you become convinced that Jeff wasn't there, and that people were pasted in, you then ask who the responsible parties were that created the paste jobs. As these images were available from day one, or nearly so, it's clear that the perpetrators of the faked bomb also created these tampered images. And that means the two men accused of setting off the bomb were either actors playing along (i.e. the one brother is not really dead), or they have murdered / persecuted innocent men on behalf of their faked event. Behind the crouched woman in black (image above) beside Mr. Burgundy, there is a medic acting like he's fixing up the Negro woman, and he's even facing Jeff at this time. He would have seen Jeff long ago if he was really there, yet he helps a woman with minor injuries instead, which is simply not reality. She goes off on the stretcher first, instead of Jeff. What does it say about the condition of Americans when the government can get away with this while there are upwards to 50 reasons for signalling a faked event, reasons all told by various online voices, all of them ridiculed instead of being praised? The image above even shows two police officers doing nothing who could be tending to Jeff at this time. The lady with white bag is looking toward Jeff, but she ends up walking right on by without as though he were not there. Bald Man is walking right by Jeff in his image with the camera, but seems oblivious to his existence. The "cowboy" (Mr. Arredondo) who took credit for putting Jeff into his wheelchair is in the image supposedly jumping over the scaffolding. But he goes on, not to help Jeff, but to roll up the wood-slat fence. We must assume that he decided the fence removal to be more important than poor Jeff without his legs. It will be an unknown amount beyond four minutes more before Jeff is wheeled away, but of course we don't know for certain where Jeff was at this time. Look at the man with grey hood, who has supposedly been beside Jeff from the start. He's not calling cowboy over to come help Jeff, nor has he called anyone to help Jeff, nor has he tried to get up to help Jeff himself. Can you possibly be blind enough that this image alone doesn't convince you that the event was staged? There is hope for you if you've never been shown things like this, but, having had it explained while still being incapable of seeing, I have great concern for the condition of your mentality. Many have political and job-keeping reasons not to speak out, but that doesn't keep anyone from secretly acknowledging the truth. Look at all that glass blown toward the bomb. How do you think that happened? Won't you allow this fact to speak to you? Media people have a business to run, and cannot speak out due to the great number of organized, government trolls who will seek to damage them. But, for God's sake, at least acknowledge the truth. Don't just ignore this and assume nothing in the future will be affected, for they must be doing rotten things as we speak, and they have a lot of money to do it with. The wicked want your support to invade and change the Middle East. A world government cannot come about without killings. There has never been an attempt at forming a world government that didn't have the fundamental agenda of killing those opposed until the rest submit by force. No one would even try to form a world government without having killings as part of the plan. Western intrusion into the Ukraine is part of the globalist plot. Western intrusion into the Middle East by Bush was part of the global order. His father even confessed to participating in a new world order when he was the president. This globalist hive does exist. It doesn't have a front door with a sign, but it does exist, and the members know who one another are. Every ear, Bilderberg globalists meet with full police, media and government protection, while inviting politicians from the areas of their globalist concerns. Don't you think that this is one expression of many for the global movement? Don't you think that they are moving everything to a "global village," where everything is one theme for everyone, no different colors allowed? But what will they do to us when they increase in power? We don't know, because they aren't telling. We know they are killing their leading enemies, because there is no way to form a global order apart from doing so, and retaining it once achieved will require killings with a lot more efficiency and speed. The Western media are terrified of them, and do as they command. They purchase entire nations and force their media to submit. They have been stomping on Christianity over several generations, and came to control sufficient political structures, in the latter half of the 20th century, to go forward in a global reach. They now have the ability to spy on any online computer, a situation predicted to become worse as they secure deeper partnerships with stooges controlling the Internet. They will infiltrate and then possess control of the Internet where possible (no brainer). They had at least one of their trolls reading my Boston-Marathon material in 2013. I know it because someone emailed me to say that they knew Jeff personally, and that he did have legs before the bombing. They are keeping watch over everything in order to eradicate enemies, by ridicule if nothing else, but we are hoping for a giant collision when they go head-to-head with God. Until now, they have been soft on His people. But for how much longer? There is little use trying to topple these invisible worms. By the fact that they have no front door, nor list of membership available to the public, they become worms. There is no better definition for such an organization. They pay sleek centipedes and hard-headed beetles to do their dirty work, and stay detached enough to protect themselves against court proceedings should things go wrong in their dirty work. The centipedes and beetles risk their lives by working for them, because they stand great risk at being killed off when they grow to know too much. The globalists have a wormhood to which they can appeal when in trouble. They are generally on the satanic side of things, and much of their political fuel is from their hatred of Christianity. It is predictable that, when they see opportunity enough, they will begin systematic Christian persecution. It's more pleasant to believe that they are kind individuals sincerely concerned for everyone's rights and advancements, but the red flags suggest that this is not the case, but is rather the false facade they erect in order to find popular support...until they are powerful enough to betray even those who supported them. Taking such a negative view places me in their "conspiracy nut" camp, predicting a day when it will be against the official law to be such a nut. All we need to do to make them stronger is to acknowledge that they don't exist as I've just portrayed them. Within 20 years, we could be tightly in their shackles, but there is coming an Earthquake, in the Middle of the Night, to set us free from our dungeons. Flight 93 Could Not Have Crashed The Boston Marathon pales in comparison to 9-11. What better flag do we need than 9-11 to teach us how diabolical the American globalists are? We should be thankful, in a sense, for these events, for they have opened the eyes of many as to what's truly going on in U.S and some European governments. Unfortunately, many 9-11 truthers are also anti-Christians who will keep to themselves when struggling against globalism, and may turn a blind eye when Christian persecution increases. The foul Christian figment in the Republican party is working to assure persecution of every Christian stripe, and Obama has gotten its wheels rolling already. We saw the evidence that Obama has been using government people to spy on Christian organizations. It would be foolish of us to listen only to the reports but then go no further by gleaning between the lines. There is a lot more taking place under the radar than the few things that surface in some media. In a sense, we should welcome severe persecution if it's only for a short time, and I think this is exactly what God has in mind. Short and quick, game over for the worms. I saw the evidence with my own eyes, but so did hundreds of millions of others. There was a smoking hole in the ground in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. I didn't see plane parts in the hole. There were small metal parts strewn about in the hole, but nothing that could be proven to be part of Flight 93. The authorities and the media reported that the plane penetrated fully into the ground, to be fully buried in the dirt. I said, "you're nuts," but hundreds of millions of people bought it. Yes, they believe the ground opened up for this plane, then closed itself up again, and that the impact was so clean that no dirt or plane debris was spattered around the hole. Yes, that is an excellent indicator on how terribly deluded the masses have become, whom we cannot depend on in the time of our troubles...in large part because they will be blind to, or even cheering, our persecution. Domenick DiMaggio, a private Flight-93 investigator: "wally miller {Indian Lake mayor] confirmed for me that there wasn't any debris at all to the east of the crater." East of the crater is in the open field, with Indian lake beyond it. The perpetrators had all the debris in the forest, which was not the flight path, but to its right, and yet had no debris to the left of the flight path. How does that happen? No explosion can have eyes like that unless it's in the barrel of a gun. Explosions in open air pack a force in a direction of 360 degrees. The hole at Pennsylvania is online for anyone to see. I can't recall the exact distance, but the hole was some 600 feet from a scarp yard, or the yard's office. It should seem obvious to us that the perpetrators did not order a truck load of scrap metal to be dumped in and around the hole apart from the neighboring scrap yard knowing about it. In other words, this neighboring business knew that the hole was being fixed to look like a plane wreck. We can be sure precisely due to the yard being so close to the hole. If the scrap yard was not privy to the hoax, the perpetrators would have found another place to fake it, not risking the high chance that the scrap-yard people would discover the plot. Obviously. But, going the one obvious step further, we realize that the scrap yard itself provided the junk strewn in and around the hole. The perpetrators did this obvious thing knowing beforehand that they would not suffer court action. Their reach of power is far-greater than anyone imagined. 9-11 taught us that, if only we are brave enough to look at it. The Google page below has some photos of the hole. The page comes with an abundance of images to strike your heart, having the effect of deceiving you. Have the wisdom to know that some / all images of the crash zone have been tampered with. I have never-before seen the image (page below) with what looks like the tail of a plane at one end of the hole. I don't know what this image is about, but the hole where you see the tail fin is NOT the hole shown in the original picture for Flight 93. The original pictures are those having over-turned dirt in chaotic fashion (i.e. not showing a smooth central crater) but with some grass still growing on the inside of the hole, as though they used a hole to begin with but over-turned some of its soil to make it deeper / create ridges on the perimeter. Look at how clean the grass is around the hole. https://www.google.ca/search?q=9-11+%22flight+93%22&biw=831&bih=380&tbm=isch&imgil=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%253Ba1VBn13I2xStFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252F911review.com%25252Ferrors%25252Fphantom%25252Fflight93.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%252Ca1VBn13I2xStFM%252C_&usg=__FZiOJfODlwyRawXoqnTQTN4fGhY%3D&dpr=1 The hole has been designed in aerial views with long, cleaner depressions representing wing impacts, and even the central crater is smoothly round so that your mind cannot get the wrong impression as to what may have fallen into this hole. But other images show a differently-shaped hole...serving to expose the stupidity (or call it desperation) and great powers owned by the perpetrators, for in altering the images, they expose the fakery further, but as they have yet to go to court, they obviously have power over the risks presented by their stupidity. One can put it another way: serving to expose the stupidity of the people so that the perpetrators thought they could get away with changing the shape of the hole...and, they apparently did get away with it. Legally, they have nothing to worry about if its not known who submitted the tampered aerial view to the Internet. Some will say that there is no need of typical plane parts at this hole simply because the hole shows the wing marks and a central crater. They would argue, what more does anyone need to know that a plane hit here? The government criminals were banking on your taking that position. In those days, it was firmly believed by the powers that what you see in an image is what you are to believe as the reality. They had no idea that a significant uprising would come against them for years after 9-11. It should be obvious to you that the hole (ignoring the ones with long wing marks) was freshly excavated with a common excavator. Freshly excavated dirt will grow significant grass and weeds within two months prior to September, but the over-turned dirt does not show such. No matter how you may envision a plane striking the ground at a near-vertical, the fuel is expected to burst into a massive explosion, not to penetrate into the ground. The explosion is expected to send plane parts all around the hole. The flimsy aluminum housing that is the bulk of the plane is not expected to penetrate into the ground like a hard iron beam, but will rather break up and splash all around. I know you have sense enough to know that, until you start hearing the insiders at blogging sites who are there to curb your thinking so that you will focus on their phrases and ignore certain keys. They will emphasize the great force of the plane and the soft dirt, but dirt compacts and is much more resistant to collisions than you may envision. Put it this way, where have you ever heard of a plane completely disappearing into the dirt? Be wise enough to know that the best arguments / websites on behalf of truthers are likely being buried by Google so that you won't find them (at least not easily). Also, the insiders are expected to create web pages feigning truthers when in fact the pages present subtle arguments that benefit insiders. Below is an aerial view of the hole. Note how short the wing depression is on the one side. See if you can estimate the tip-to-tip span of the wing gash. I see significantly less than 100 feet. In fact, using this aerial image (or see it here) to compare with a road that looks to be no wider than two large-truck widths, or about 15 feet, the tip-to-tip distance looks to be about 50 feet across, less than half the wing span on Flight 93. In the top-right corner, they have the tampered image. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1.jpg As the image above is not as reflective of a plane as the NBC one below, the above was likely the original, and they have it in low resolution. The crater is not smoothly round, and much larger (in comparison to the wing markings) than the smoothly-round crater in the image below. The two images are clearly not the same; at least one of them was tampered with. The one below is provided with the crater nearer to the camera than the wings, while the opposite is true for the image above, meaning they may have flipped their tampered one around to make a comparison harder. Even so, the differences are readily noticed. Below, the wing span furthest from the viewer is the one furthest from the road. Look at how long the wing span is from the edge of the crater. There is shade (from the trees) on the ground at the crater as though the tamperers were trying to make the wing span seem a little shorter. Note that they seem to have made the wing scars deeper into the ground than pictures at ground level indicate. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2.jpg The image below looks identical with the one above, aside from being flipped around a bit, and with the grass green. One can make out that the shade from the trees is identical between both images. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2B.jpg The image below was taken likely by the same plane / helicopter a few minutes later, and the grass is now a different color once again. Why? Were they distributing these tampered images as though taken from different planes / cameramen in order to falsify the real look of the hole? http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2D.jpg The tampered one below has different tree-shade shape but once again it's provided at the crater area i.e. making it harder to notice the differences at a glance. The shade and what could be a slightly-enlarged crater makes the wing span seem shorter, once again, than the image having no shade. I'm suggesting that while they probably had many images to choose from, they chose ones with shade at the crater. These are the only images available, apparently, telling that there was an enforced restriction at the site for taking aerial photos. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg Now take a look at the real hole again, which is in low resolution because it's been enlarged from a shot from very far up in the sky (could be a satellite image). Still, one can see that the central crater has a different shape than on the tampered ones. There are no long wings spans on either side. And that's why they had NBC and others distribute images with tree shading. Right? The tree shading indicates that they tampered with the images before distributing them. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1C.jpg For proof, see the image below showing the hole from a camera on the ground. It's showing a SHORT depression for what we are to believe was the wing scar, which, as you can see, is too unreal to be a wing scar from a powerful nose dive. There is no way that a plane wing crashed there, but the insiders originally thought that a shabby job (by the excavator) was sufficient...because they thought no one would suspect the hoax or scrutinize the images presented to the news. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg The real hole image above from way up has the following caption under it: "P200058 - Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - uscourts.gov [hi-res]" (square brackets not mine). We may suppose that, for court purposes, they had to hand in the real, untampered image. This and other images above were borrowed from this photo gallery: http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html Excavation of the site, by the government, began in days, destroying the original look of the hole in case anyone flew over to take a picture. No doubt, a no-fly zone over the area was in place. Therefore, all we have to go with are the government-supplied pictures. Or, put it this way, that if the media were allowed to fly over to take pictures, the photo gallery above would likely more than the two of images from planes/helicopters provided, which were the two taken within an hour apart (i.e. the two with the near-identical tree shading). I'd say you can call that government control, not free press. And it's media-winked government control too. Below is the same hole from the same direction of the one taken along the ground, but a little further back and at an earlier time of the day (while the smoke was more pronounced). The depression was not formed on that day but was there already, as the green grass indicates. That is, some of the green grass is already sloping into the wing hole. It looks like the ground was simply scratched a little to make it look freshly disturbed. The reason for the shortness of the wing slice may have been due to the excavator' shovel incapable of reaching further with the machine positioned in the central hole. Plus, the central hole was required larger in order to have the excavator reach further out for the wing job. They could have used a larger excavator, but the perpetrators thought a shabby job would do the trick. Besides, the machine used may have been the largest one that the scrap yard had. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing2.jpg In the aerial view, one can see that the hole starts smack at the side of a road so that any clean up of the excavator's tracks would have been fast and easy. Ask whether it was a coincidence that the plane would come down with one wing tip smack on the shoulder of a road. But there is another problem; they didn't make the hole wide enough, thinking that no one would bother to measure it. The image below is one from someone who did bother. They have the plane in the hole along with trucks on the side of the street, showing that the wing span of Flight 93 should have crossed completely across the road: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93ToScale.jpg If the plane in the image above is correctly to scale (anyone can easily verify whether it's correct or not), then the wings of the aircraft would have bounced off the road, made a mark/gash in the road, and wing parts should be nearby and scattered along the road, but none of this is the reality at this site. Take the image above showing the crater around the green grass, and find how many body lengths there are from crater-edge to crater edge. I count about seven. Enlarge the image below and do the same measurement to find that the hole is now only about three or four human-body lengths across. Which images can we trust? It doesn't matter, because the very fact that tampering has been provided to the public from news people proves that we are not being treated with honesty. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Hole.jpg In a court of law, the word of a policeman against a defendant is taken as evidence. It doesn't matter whether the policeman is lying; it's taken as evidence until someone can prove that a lie was told. In the same way, the word of the FBI at the crash site is taken as legal evidence. If the FBI says that it dug up plane parts at the crash site, it's taken as evidence. It can be used against anyone claiming that no plane crashed there. It doesn't matter that the FBI had total control of the site, the fact that many FBI people agree with the same storyline is the evidence that a judge must abide by. But the pieces of plane that were dug out have a voice too, and they will tell the truth, which is why the FBI would never want to go to court on this matter. The pieces of the plane that were dug out were not from Flight 93, and the FBI likely did not allow any independent person to inspect these pieces. They likely did a shabby job by providing wrong pieces, because the entire affair was a major headache for them. It is actually tough to be a law-enforcement agency while breaking the law as they did. It corrupted them. In a court case, the defendant would have the right to prove that the FBI was lying by seeking to convince the judge that no plane landed there. An engineer could easily calculate how deep the aluminum housing (fuselage) of a passenger jet, coming in at a nose dive upon any type of soil system, would penetrate into the ground before finding complete resistance. Although a fuselage looks like a bullet, once its nose cone is compromised, it's nothing but an aluminum shell attached to a couple of floors. The point will be reached when the fuselage breaks away from the floors. Nothing in a plane is made heavier than needed to safely resist potential flight and landing stresses. The fuselage will not be attached to the floors with more metal than needed to fly safe. But, in any case, the aluminum is thin gauge, and will rip away easily from whatever holds it to the floor-joist system. Once the aluminum is ripped away from the heavier items to which its attached, it loses the plane's full momentum, and penetrates the ground as best it can on its own momentum. The aluminum will crumple while it penetrates, but will reach the point where, instead of piercing the ground, the fuselage will solely crumple. However, during crumpling, it's expected to break up into many pieces. We all understand that, in a military-based hoax amounting to a headache of huge magnitude for the FBI, the less work they needed to do to clinch the hoax, the better. Trucking in 85 pieces of fuselage, many of which had to fit together at their tears, just to make the event look absolutely real, was out of the question. The masses had best start to be fooled a lot easier just to make the work of the FBI a lot easier. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Fuselage.jpg I've never heard of an airplane disappearing completely or even partially into the soil. With this "new reality," think of how much cheaper it will be for globalists. Just call up an excavator for two hours, turn the soil a little, and, voila, a plane-crash site. Why even bother with any small debris, for this new reality can sink 100 percent of the plane, like a marble dropped into water. Come to think of it, how do we know that the U.S. military has not, prior to 9-11, faked other crashes by claiming near-complete disintegration of the plane? Here's some news-media quotes borrowed from the killtown webpage below (has covered the Flight-93 crash extensively): "Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.' - Washington Post (05/12/02) "The plane, too, was decimated. The largest pieces were the size of suitcases, the smallest the size of dimes. "It just looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky," Miller said." - Houston Chronicle (09/08/02) ..."Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a 'briefcase.' 'If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash,' he continued. The debris is very, very small.'" "'The best I can describe it is if you've ever been to a commercial landfill. When it's covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal.' - Pittsburgh Live (09/14/01)" "'If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap,' said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. 'There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces.' - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)" http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/debris.html#scrap_yard And that's why the large piece of fuselage wasn't likely there from day one. They had planned to do a shabby job with no one asking questions. They just wanted us to believe that the plane disintegrated. But they turned their headache into a death-wish. Poor slobs, FBI, poor slobs. The webpage continues: 'The mangled heap of iron and steel actually belongs to Rollock Inc., a scrap metal business owned and managed by the father-and-son team of Tony and Chris Kordell of Bedford County. The property they purchased three years ago abuts the crash site, which lies just several yards beyond the perimeter of the Kordells' land.' - pittsburghlive.com (09/11/02) (*Remember that the only reported witness to actually see Flight 93 reportedly crash was Lee Purbaugh, who was ex-Navy and only on his 2nd day of work at Rollock.) It sounds like he was "hired" just to act as a witness, which is how we can know all-the-more that Rollock was involved with this crime. There is no other explanation. The crime could not have taken place had not Rollock employees been a part of it. They were supposed to make the FBI's job easy. Instead, by their shabby job, they announced to the world that this was a hoax. If anyone's listening, that is. The tampered image has the wing span nearly as large as that of Flight 93, meaning that the image had the gouge 125-150 feet long. But here's a news report that says otherwise: Reporter: How big would you say that hole was? Konicki: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20ft to 15ft long and probably 10ft wide [agrees with other witness above]. Reporter: What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash and... Konicki: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees..." - FOX (09/11/01)http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crater.html Broken trees? From what? They must have had a plan for the broken trees. The page above has the hole with two people beside it that allows one to measure the top of the hole to about 20 feet wide, expected because that's roughly the width of a fuselage. But one side of the hole looks smooth, not machined, as though it had been there from an earlier time. The image is in good resolution and shows the wing scar, ech-hem, the joke, up close. Apparently, judging by the report of killtown, no local person saw a pillar of smoke, nor a drenching of the soil with fuel, and no one said they smelled fuel. "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth,' Parsons reported. 'It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth.' - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)" Are we to be gullible enough to accept the storyline that the jet fuel went into the soil, fuel tanks and all? The alternative is to believe that the American government has conspiracy crews at all levels, and in all nooks, of American life. It was a little hard to come to terms with in the beginning, but I'm settled on it now. American history will never look the same again. Even if you believe the other explanations, you need to grapple with this fuel problem. It's important as to how you will view the state of the global government at this time. If this crash was impossible, so was all of 9-11 an inside job. The perpetrators can't have it every way. The faster it was moving, the greater the chances, above 99 percent, that the fuel would burst into flames on the ground. No one really knows how fast the plane was moving, since it wasn't there, or because no one had a devise to measure its speed even if they did see it. The report that it was moving 500 mph or more is based on the need to explain a buried airplane showing no plane parts. Some news reports tell of the soft soil in that area, and some claim that the land was recently backfilled. However, the softer the dirt, the deeper the crater. The crater was not deep at all when compared to craters of other crashes, and yet their argument is that the soil was softer than most soils. That doesn't work. I've just read the example of a dart shot into flour where, instead of making a large hole, there is barely any evidence of the dart's entry point. But dirt isn't flour, and no one I've read has given a prior example for such a dart-scenario accomplished between a crashing plane and dirt. When war missiles (very much like darts) hit the ground and explode, they cause craters, not the dart-flour effect. And Flight 93 supposedly exploded, according to the authorities who provided a video of a black, smoky cloud rising from the "crash site." But that video serves only to prove the hoax because, instead of a constant pillar of smoke from long-burning jet fuel, there is a short cloud burst only, as though from an explosion(s) by some other means, without the ignition of jet fuel. Apparently, the eye-witness at the scrap yard reported no pillar of smoke, and no one at seeing the site caught any such thing on video or camera. The best we saw in the provided images: no more smoke than would be caused by the burning of a bushel of wet weeds. "When asked by a reporter: 'Any large pieces of debris at all?... Smoke? Fire?' 'Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke. No fire.'" It sounds like the smoke was very temporary, and for all we know, the smoke we see in the images was pasted to the scene. Why is there only one image of the plume of smoke at the initial explosion? Wouldn't the person who caught it on camera take more pictures to show the forthcoming pillar of smoke from the burning fuel? Yes, she would have, but no, she couldn't, because that would give away the hoax when no such pillar developed. Instead: "A large rising mushroom cloud was photographed within seconds after impact by Val McClatchey, who was nearly shaken off her couch by the crash [= insider giving false testimony], causing her to run out with her new digital camera and without aiming, snapped the only known photograph of the explosion before dropping her camera." Ah, I see. Who can prove otherwise? The people who failed to see the column of smoke. For, if an explosion took place at the crash, there is no way to avoid igniting the fuel that would have splashed out when the tanks broke up upon impact. Who are you going to believe, McClatchey, or your good senses? Don't you know that a plane moving over 500 mph cannot avoid broken gas tanks? Do you think that the tanks went into the "spongy" soil unbroken? What spongy soil. That occurs only in forests, and then such peat is very shallow, anyway, in inches, not dozens of feet. But some use the example of water, far more easily to push aside than spongy soil: "Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if 'the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon'." Soil is not water, but, yes, we get the message. But do you really think that the soil you see in the images, filled with stones and rocks, could act like water around a spoon? Hello? "A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane 'went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.'" Obviously, the person who excavated the place at the request of the FBI was an insider. Obviously. He had been prepared in advance, and he didn't speak his own words, but the authorities put the words into his mouth that he should speak. And so the storyline has been that the soil, once forced away from the plane's sides due to the massive force of entry, instead of splashing outward all around, came back toward the plane so fast, like water around a spoon, that the fuel didn't have a chance to explode due to lack of oxygen. But what caused the McClatchey cloud of smoke, then? http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html A spoon dropped gently into coffee doesn't have a tank of jet fuel to blow the water away in all directions. A spoon or dart doesn't break into small pieces like the skin of an aircraft. A proper comparison cannot use something stronger than a plane, such as a dart or spoon, and something less resistant than the soil, such as flour of water. To make the comparison properly, one needs to fire a tube into flour the thickness of tin foil. You now have a hard time imagining such a tube penetrating more than a miniscule amount before crumpling. The aircraft tube has no sharp point, or hard, solid nose, as does a dart, for moving aside the "flour." You are being deceived when they cause you to view the passenger jet like a spoon or dart. And the rocky soil at the crash site was not dry flour. In fact, they forgot to mention the many rocks that you see in the dirt that are a fundamental part of the "flour." Soil has some organic cementing agents mixed with humidity that packs extraordinarily strong. The more you compress soil, the harder it tends to resist penetration. You shouldn't imagine an indestructible nose cone as it paves the way through this rocky soil for the rest of the tube. Nor should we ignore the hard objects and materials with flat faces within the plane, not predicted to penetrate rocky soil like a dart through dry flour. Try shooting a dart into humid flour to see whether such substance will flow back around the penetrated dart. The humidity makes the flour stick to itself, which is definitely the case for soil, so that it won't tend to flow back to close the entry hole. The illusion of dirt flowing back upon itself is facilitated by the images of the soil that we see, where the soil was freshly overturned with an excavator. It gives the impression that the dirt could roll back to close the hole, but in fact, a plane ramming into that soil would compact it all around, and in the meantime would splash much of it some distance away, depending on how wet (i.e. soft and sticky) it was. We saw no dirt or rocks splashed away because the perpetrators were lazy, thinking that no one would ask questions. But rocks are not sticky no matter how wet, and they are crusty so that anything striking them will send them flying. We saw not even one rock on the grass outside the hole. We can't ignore the velocity of the plane. One could appeal to the plane's high velocity in acting like a bullet cleanly penetrating dirt, but there is no precedent for a plane entering dirt like a bullet through soft butter. That's because the skin of a plane is not like a solid bullet. As per the two planes that reportedly entered the twin towers, the perpetrators wanted you to view them like a bullet through butter rather than a thin tube penetrating thick, steel columns. How thick is the aluminum housing of a large passenger plane? I don't know. I can't find the answer online in the way I can't find many things about aircraft that can be used against the 9-11 hoax. But regardless of the gauge, the aluminum would be blown apart by the fuel. here's a powerful argument to add: "Subsequent studies by the EPA of the crash site have confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been pervasive had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there." In this case, the authorities could not persuade the EPA to provide a false / distorted / slanted statement on their behalf. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It is amazing how many pieces of plane parts turned up in the forest across the street from the hole while no such parts are visible around the hole. Why should that be? Well, for one thing, any outsider might have driven by the road BEFORE the crash was slated to begin, and seeing plane parts around the hole, it would have spoiled the operation. Instead, they littered the hole area with small items not visible, or not interesting, from the road. That makes too much sense not to be the truth. And here's an insider who mentions the pieces of fuselage in the forest: Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said [neither can I]. "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker. The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said. A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods. http://www.unitedflight93.com/ A plane 40 feet above your head is an awesome thing along with the ground-shaking landing just 900 feet away (they may have exaggerated that distance) = one second away. What caused the "mushroom of flame"? Did only a small amount of jet fuel escape the tanks? How could a small amount of jet fuel, escaped from the tanks, explode rather than just becoming a flame on the ground? Or did someone plant an explosive device? How could jet fuel reach across the road to the forest -- sideways from the plane's path -- but not forward to the open field ahead of the plane? Or, why did most-everything happen in the forest? The following can help explain which scenario is the correct one: "Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. 'The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees." Oh, I see, clothes hanging in the forest, but no clothes in the open field, or on the shoulder, or on the street, only where they could be hidden from drivers-by. "Rick King, 42, of Shanksville, was behind the wheel of the first fire truck to arrive at the crash scene...heard Flight 93 scream overhead, seen a massive fireball light up the sky and felt an explosion rock the entire town of Shanksville...But besides a burning landing-gear tire, smoldering branches in the nearby WOODS [caps mine] and a few brush fires, there was little to indicate a jetliner had just crashed, he says." Let's tackle some other nearby residents, workers and eye-witnesses, trying to determine which of them were the deliberate liars, and to check for inconsistencies. It seems to be an overwhelming fact that there was an explosion with fire and smoke. Granted. Ten miles away, at a warehouse near Berlin, employee Don Miller and co-workers felt their building shake [how low is a plane when the building shakes?]. "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane. "Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that." This is a tough one. The reason for such a claim can be to "prove" to the masses that this was no ordinary flight, i.e. could be none other than Flight 93 in terrible trouble. The only way that it could have been flying upside down is where it was a military craft like you'd see at an air show. But no one in this list of witnesses has reported what looked like a military craft. It's important to note how low the plane was while ten miles away. In my opinion, however, the perpetrators would not have been flying that low where the goal was to fly low only over Shanksville, to do a fly-over. Still, we can use Mr. Miller's testimony against others, for example, Terry Butler (from Stoystown Auto Wreckers at the time) who claims the plane "dropped out of the clouds" before turning over a ridge of trees and crashing a second afterward. He didn't see the crash; he only heard the "crash," which was merely an explosive device. If he's a true and sincere witness, then he seems to contradict the story of Don Miller. That is, it seems more credible that the plane would drop from the clouds only when approaching Shanksville. Does a plane come out of the clouds upside down? Mr. Butler claims to have seen the entire flight from out of the clouds, except for one second after it went over the ridge. But he said nothing of a plane flying upside down "for a few seconds [to be followed by] a nose dive". Instead, he said that it banked to the right. If it had flipped upside down, he would have said so. It is a little suspicious, however, that Butler used the "flip" word: "...it just went flip to the right and then straight down." "Flip to the right" is not usually taken to mean "flipped upside-down," but is a figure of speech to indicate unexpectedness and/or deliberation in making a right turn. Still, one wonders whether he was part of the insiders who were being told the flip word a lot. The fact that Butler has the plane turning sharp and down into a nose dive likewise makes me suspicious. He was about three miles from the crash site. Did he really see it all that way? I do believe that a plane went through that area, otherwise there would have been an abundance of locals claiming to hear nothing. But I don't think they would ask the pilot to do a quasi-nose dive with a passenger jet to feign a crash-about-to-happen. The option wherein they used a military jet, one that looked as much as possible like a passenger jet, is not out of the question. If they had it flying low and near the speed of sound, no one might get a close enough look to make out the type of craft. At the map below (you might need to zoom in), the crash site is at the Memorial. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stoystown+Auto+Wreckers/@40.096441,-78.93995,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x80d7209855b10003 The map should be showing the location of Stoystown Auto Wreckers. Note the flight path from the wreckers to the memorial, in a south-eastward direction. The viewer, Mr. Butler, for example, was looking at he tail end of the plane moving away from him, and the crash was three miles off. Is it really true that he could see the plane do a nose dive from that distance? Only if it was relatively high in the sky, but not if it was hugging the tree lines. That may explain why this particular witness choose to have the plane drop from the clouds, because no one in his area would believe him if his testimony agreed with others, where the plane was so low it shook buildings. Back to the scrap-yard worker (at Rollock), who was interviewed some minutes after his first testimony (mentioned above), when he said: "Purbaugh describes the crash as "just like a big mushroom cloud." He says when it hit, it 'shook the ground, rolled over in some way and then collapsed'..." It hit the ground and then rolled over in some way??? That's got to be a mistake. But he's the only person who saw the plane hit the ground, and in this case, it says he was only 200 yards away, not 300. I mean, this testimony is the best anyone has of what happened at ground zero, and he says the plane rolled over AFTER it hit. How can that be reconciled with a smooth dart penetrating flour and becoming covered over again??? I'm sure that I can explain the contradiction correctly: this false witness never saw any plane hit, and he was supposed to say something like it had rolled over on its back before striking the ground, but screwed up and put the roll-over AFTER the landing. Here's another entry: "Minutes later, the plane crashed in rural Somerset County, about 20 miles away. 'It was like an atomic bomb hit," said John Walsh, 72,..." An "atom bomb" from 20 miles away is an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? I don't think he heard a thing, especially as the fuel tanks didn't explode while the dart just entered smooth into the soft, buttery, newly-backfilled, spongy dirt that had the nature of coffee enveloping a spoon. Here's another account of Miller's testimony: Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground...As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene [who would have been so busy elsewhere at the time that they needed to drive away from this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle?]... Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires [nothing blazing extraordinarily, apparently]. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers [clearly, nothing blazing extraordinarily] they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department. ...What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later. Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we'll save that for later. ...Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next. The webpage above shares the story of the sighting of a small white plane at the "crash site" seconds before the explosion went off. I suppose it's possible that his plane detonated an explosive device. Here's a testimony to be trusted because it shares what the perpetrators would not have coached their false witnesses to say: "Laura Temyer of Hooversville...'I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.'" There were others who reported the engines going quiet briefly before the explosion, and so I think we can chalk up that item on the side of the real facts. In another testimony of Laura's, her thumps were called "booms." Here now is a thud sound: Viola Saylor of Lambertsville was outside talking to her sister. "We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud." Once again we see, the engines went quiet. One scrap-yard worker said he heard the plane coming in for 10-15 seconds, which amounts to four or more miles away, but here in Viola's testimony, the sound didn't start until the plane was overhead. This may indicate a soft glide down from cloud levels, with some engine roar for the fly-over across ground zero so that a soft glide afterward will get the plane further away. It's obvious that the plane had to go quiet, by design, for the explosion. It is of obvious importance that the plane should not be heard by anyone after the explosion(s). But once far enough from ground zero, it would have accelerated (quietly) and slipped away through a pre-determined path (with sparsest population?). The webpage from which the eyewitness reports were taken has this remark: Some of the conspiracy believers claim there was no crash in the field and that the impact crater was faked. Yes, really! Well then, if there was not a plane crash, and no deaths, which means no plane was shot down, which means . . . it was all a fake? If this were true, people are being paid to pretend they lost relatives on the flight! HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE GETTING??http://www.unitedflight93.com/ I don't know. You'd have to ask the people getting paid. The writer then goes on to say: "The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces." We can forgive him/her because it wasn't generally known at first that there was no fuel explosion. Nor was there any unburned fuel found on-site, though tests were conducted to find fuel contamination. We can also forgive him/her because it is hard to come to terms with a conspiracy of this magnitude. But if, after the obvious has been explained, he/she doesn't listen, then he/she is in danger of becoming a wicked-government tool. It can't have a good ending for anyone. This writer is trying their best but is really coming up shy of reality because he/she is convinced the plane landed there. "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air." The writer is trying to explain how some parts got into the forest or the pond, or eight miles away, but fails to see what's before the eyes in the close-up pictures, where small fragments litter the over-turned dirt but do not appear on the adjacent, undisturbed soil. It seems that their inability to believe in a faked crash makes them draw back from focusing hard enough on the undisturbed soil to see what it's saying to them. A fuel-tank explosion requires a sweeping plot of devastation the likes of which is missing in the photos presented to us. It's actually quite incredible how easily we humans can be deceived. It could have been me; it could have been you. Virtually every truther was deceived, at first. That's because we trusted. We were guilty of nothing but trusting our fellow man. "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away." I've just got to shake my head. How does the writer envision such a magnificent force while failing to see the undisturbed soil just six inches past the crater? One can even argue that small rocks still on the GRASS should not be there after a massive explosion. I make my share of stupid mistakes when not fully attentive to things, but in this case, if one wants to speak on a massive explosion, there is no way to be inattentive to that grass growing as far as into the wing scar, because the fuel tanks were in the wings. Just look at this tall grass: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg They have the center of the hole charred, but the fuel tanks were in the wings, yet the part where the wing scar is claimed to be has tall grass. There's very sloppy work. Plus, how could an explosion send all of those metal fragments onto the over-turned soil, but send none on the undisturbed soil? Did the explosion have eyes? Shouldn't we see fragments on the green grass too? Clearly, there was no explosion at the crash site. It's not necessary that the perpetrators caused their explosion(s) on top of "crash site," or, if they did, the explosion was directed upwards alone for maximum effect in the sky i.e. for maximum visibility from people far off. I have yet to read anyone that says the fire was prolonged. No one snapped a picture of fire. The writer needs to remove his explosion argument lest people take him for a ninny. Or put it this way, that if I have a small camp fire on the grass, whether it's wet or not, the fire starts to creep through the grass as it dries, and one needs to be attentive to keep the fire from spreading. Moreover, some grass near the fire wilts noticeably, but we see no fire-creep in the grass, nor wilting, at a location that supposedly had tanks of jet fuel burning high into the sky for a considerable time. It is clear that the FBI did not allow people to take images of the location, or we would have a lot more to judge by. Perhaps even the four or five pictures that are available were taken by outsiders that were not supposed to get out. That is, the insider plot may have been to keep the public from seeing the green grass, for it makes no sense that they would permit the grass to remain. We can be sure that they are seeking an Internet law or rule that forbids the common people from copying images from news sights. I have seen that already. The question on how the explosion was performed is a good one. Perhaps it launched from the forest, explaining the forest on fire, and some tree damage. The small white plane may have caused it. On the plane debris and body parts scattered about, it's plain that it was planted, or one would see some of it around the crater. Some debris miles away turned up at the same general spot, as though the explosion was playing golf, seeking to drive it to one spot alone. There are various theories on that part of this story, and we should not ridicule those who try to explain it. The ridicule belongs to the ones who put this part of the plot together. They had paper eight miles from the crash site, which looks like an attempt to feign a mid-air explosion...from the bomb that the terrorists supposedly had. It can be seen in various plane crashes that all fuel cannot be instantly consumed during the explosion. The explosion spreads the fuel out so that it burns slowly wherever it lands. There is not sufficient oxygen to consume the entire tanks of gas all at once in a small volume of space. Therefore, as the fire in Pennsylvania did not burn for hours, there was no jet-fuel explosion. The writer is in danger of altering his/her sense of physics reality. From now on, writers such as this are in danger of completely misinterpreting the physics of a plane crash, just as the perpetrators would have them. With educators submitting to the likes of these perpetrators, reality will be distorted in a number of areas. The writer continues: "The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away." That depends on whether the witness(es) can be trusted who say they felt it ten miles away. To shun the possibility of false witnesses is unwise. The plot could not have worked so well without them. The writer himself/herself is a victim of the false witnesses. On the page below, the story on Flight 1771 (1987) sounds a lot doubtful. The plane was reported at extremely high speed (approximately 700 mph), extremely steep angle of descent, with all plane parts on the obliterated side, but with a crash hole only two feet deep and four feet long. ??? The crash came with a suicide message, recovered miraculously, and the police even found the gun of the man who supposedly brought the plane down. It doesn't sound logical for such a plane to cause a hole that shallow in a grassy hill. No engines or heavy beams are visible in the two pictures of the crash site. At one time, no one would have asked any questions, but now is no longer "at one time." "Unburnt paper was flying everywhere [easy to spread around by hand] as small aircraft fuel fires [easy to set up] burned on the ground [why not a pillar of smoke?]. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 [of 43] of the passengers were never identified [or they didn't exist in the first place]. All aboard, including Burke and Thomson, were killed." Providing most of those things was do-able, but providing a large hole with a machine may not have been. Two feet deep and four feet long is do-able quietly by shovel. http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html Faking plane crashes for various reasons may have a history in the several of decades. If the public would buy a two-foot deep hole from a passenger liner moving 700 mph at a 70-degree angle, it was butter in their fingers. One possibility: Flight 1771 was stolen (i.e. never crashed), the airliner collected the insurance by pre-design, and the passenger list was fabricated. At the page above, go down to the box having the plane, Canberra Mk.2 WD991, because it had a crashing speed comparable to the speed claimed for Flight 93, and a nose-dive angle of 80 degrees (we are lost for words). The debris field (image below) shows a large burn mark in the field, as expected of a real crash, and there is plane-piece debris scattered for many planes lengths from the crash spot, as expected, neither of which was the case for Flight 93. The visible pieces are all white, suggesting fuselage pieces, and although they look small, the distance of the camera suggests that these pieces can be as large as four feet long. The high number of them over a wide area is what a person expects, who has a grasp of reality not shifted by the 9-11 goons. The scattered debris is what a normal person expects from a "disintegrating" plane on contact with the ground, because we have never heard before of any plane disintegrating fully into pieces the size of nuts and bolts, or vaporizing altogether apart from hot fire. These concepts are becoming the new reality if the goons can get away with it. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Canberra.gif The fact that 9-11 catapulted the American military into the Middle East describes the nature of the humanity involved in the Middle East. You can't have much confidence in that nature when you see 9-11 as a colossal falsification fed to the American people themselves, while falsely accusing an Arab peoples who were not involved. This has the stink of Nazi's who kill masses brutally and sleep well. This plays very well to the topics of End Times and Lake-of-Fire punishment. It seems that the masses who support these Middle-East intruders will be lumped into those deserving the Lake of Fire. If at first Christians were deceived by the Bush invasion of Iraq, there has been ample time, and ample opportunities, to get it right. If you know that all the nations will be gathered to the Middle East for the punishment of Armageddon, how could you, as FOX news does, or even as World Net Daily does, support the American intrusions into the Middle East. Is that wise, do you think? Whatever goodness American may have guided herself with in decades gone by, it's gone today. In case the sorry job at the "crash" site" convinced some people that no plane came down, the perpetrators had some powerful jabs to their credibility prepared with eye-witnesses who spotted the plane coming down. Some of them heard the plane coming across their houses at low altitude, and as this reported plane took a path close to a street with many houses, one is forced to agree that a plane did fly that way. But was it Flight 93, that is the question? The hole at the scrap yard won't help with the answer. Some of the witnesses are expected to have been insiders who didn't technically lie when saying that they heard / saw a plane. On searching the story of Flight 93, you will come across reports of airplane fragments some six miles or more from the scrap yard, as well as body parts, but why assume it was Flight 93 that flew that way? At the page below, you can read that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport (Ohio) early in the hoax. There was too much information reported about this incident to call it a mistake. The story was retracted for unknown reasons. In this report, there are terrorists aboard Flight 93, and the cockpit mic is left on unwittingly or, to put it another way, by design of the perpetrators, it was necessary that the public hear this fabricated conversation conducted by the faked terrorists on board. They said they had a bomb and were going to land the plane at the airport because they had secured all their demands from the United States. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday [that day, 9-11] at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93." http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/theories.html One possible motive for this part of the plot is that some leading perpetrators felt that site at Pennsylvania was too shabby to go ahead with the plan. So, instead, they were going to land the plane and make a different scenario out of it. Others wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania plot. The sky is the limit here as to the possible theories, but very apparently, the plane landed, and passengers were evacuated; I can't see how the mayor could have had that wrong. Someone contacted him to say that the plane had been evacuated, or was in the process of being evacuated. I don't think we can argue that he made that story up; he must have received it in a phone call / email. Have we got that right? And this helps to explain why no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and why the Cleveland story was retracted after the Pennsylvania crash made the news. Flight 93 wasn't scheduled for Cleveland, and so when United Airlines identified the hi-jacked plane as Flight 93, by what chance could they have had that wrong? The Pennsylvania story had not yet broken on the news i.e. United Airlines did not (was not supposed to) know that Flight 93 would be reported hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania, meaning that when United had Flight 93 at Cleveland, there could be no mistake about it being Flight 93. Their computerized communication systems indicated Flight 93. They didn't dream up the number "93," nor should we argue that they meant some other number but blurted "93" by mistake. Nor should we assume that they communicated some other number but that someone at the other end heard / read it wrongly as 93. These things would be possible if the number had not been reported as 93, but the fact that Flight 93 would be involved, that morning, in a terrorist-heist scenario in Pennsylvania, convinces me that United had correctly conveyed the landing of Flight 93. In another news report concerning the landing: "The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside." That latter claim could indicate the story as desired / reported by those particular perpetrators who wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania hoax. They needed a plane filled with passengers, and perhaps the plot was going to have the hijackers lifting off from Cleveland with passengers in the plane. Instead, they opted to retract the story, deny the landing, and reported the plane doing a U-turn, with hijackers steering it, while in the air near Cleveland. "The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15." How does anyone make such a thing up by mistake, then report it to the mayor? If the mayor was one of the insiders, then he was of the camp that wanted 93 to land. Apparently, the story was going to be that the authorities had successful negotiations with the terrorists. Later in the day, an FBI spokesman entered the news to say that Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland, not 93. But it was the FBI who took control in Pennsylvania, and so how far can we trust this new number? Zero. The FBI quickly took over the story that the media was not to tell, and the FBI lied to the public for the sake of saving the scrap-yard hoax. After half of America was grappling for some time with the wave of "truthers," which has become a sort of dirty word to many, and as the pesky truthers put heads together and got down to some serious business, this came out: "Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly 'crashed' in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville."http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It looks like the plane landed, released the passengers (into confinement?), then took off again for some unknown destination. This plane was seen again in active service (business as usual). Before much longer, the truthers knew they had said too much, that they had the perpetrators at their mercy, and that the time would fast approach for a killing fest if they continued to point fingers. It's predictable that many active truthers and potential-active truthers went quiet(er) once the cat was fully out of the bag. But the perpetrators' worst enemies are those who feign being on the government side. These were created by the perpetrators, by fear, but this very thing has made them the silent enemy that, at any moment, can quietly do damage. Lots of it. Amongst these hushed people are media barons, leading journalists, mayors, judges, police chiefs, you name it, all out there wanting revenge and new/different government leaders. The pendulum must swing the other way, and everyone will reap what they sow. From Griffin's analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes. More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006: (1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville "crash", Todd Beamer's last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer's call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government's own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND! (2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls. (3) Lisa Jefferson [Verizon operator], who reportedly took Beamer's call, failed to mention the phrase "Let's roll" in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer's voice. (4) In fact, the FBI [at court] delayed bringing out the story of "Let's Roll" and the passengers "fighting back" and apparently only did so to stop the story of a [military] flight shoot-down from gaining momentum. (5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air. (article above). The things that should be coming to your mind are the many ways for the government to give false impressions to the public, and that these tactics were not new on 9-11, but well-practiced for decades prior. If nothing more, it has become far more costly for the authorities to conduct hoax's because lazy / sloppy schemes can no longer find success. The Boston Marathon, very sloppy, only added more heads to the truther camps. I probably wouldn't have covered these hoax's except that they have the propensity to play to prophetic themes. A new description of the American and British governments has become necessary while we look forward to fulfilled prophecy. The small taste of "martial law" in Boston, set up merely to find one young, framed man, is indicative of things to come. It wasn't by chance. It was a trial balloon. It showed that the police are the enemy of the public, which is the definition of a police state. A police state is not one that has a police force, but one where the police are in conflict with the people. It can be caused by unruly people, or by corrupt government. Boston's trial balloon was not from the unruly people, leaving only one option: a corrupt Obama. The article above has made a couple of good points concerning the cell-phone calls supposedly from 9-11. Obviously, these calls have one purpose, to fashion in your mind the things that the perpetrators wanted us to believe was the reality. But what's wrong with this particular conversation: Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb." How many times do you tell your mom your last name just in case she doesn't know who you are by your first name alone? I'd laugh except that I'd rather celebrate the jailing of the perpetrators. The Jailor is Coming. The Big Jail has been Prepared. If the perpetrators are not afraid of man due to their overwhelming powers, they should be afraid of Jesus. My position on 9-11 was not rooted in a desire to smear the government or the FBI. I simply and genuinely came to see that no planes landed either at the Pentagon or the scrap-yard site. It is a natural extension of that belief to point fingers at the government and FBI, charging them with the faking of plane crashes. There is nothing more complicated, and certainly nothing diabolical, about that position. It is a logical position: if there were no planes, the government faked the crashes. It's not my horror story, but theirs. I'm just explaining it the best I can; they are the ones who need to answer to it. Instead, they mainly ignore the people who point fingers at them, thus securing their future enemy. They continue to be viewed, and charged, as diabolical operators. They have brought that upon themselves, and will need to deal with it.](http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCorcoran2.jpg){kind=link}
![http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCowboyFence.jpg In the next image in the video, at 3:51, part of his hand is showing, but as it's not all showing, we might get the impression that another man's foot was pasted in to hide the rest of his hand, and whatever he may be carrying. It doesn't look like he's carrying anything. It seems doubtful that, as the original plot, he was to carry a pyrotechnic device around for this long. The image at the 3:51 point is more than two minutes after the blast. The foot may have been pasted to hide the fact that he didn't have a camera. It would have been necessary to hide this because they pasted a camera to him in an earlier image. They now want us to think that he has a camera in his hand, in other words, that's blocked by the foot. However, I have never seen this man, who appears in several images, taking pictures at any time. Therefore, the argument that he has a pyrotechnic device in his hand at 3:43 is a good one, but it doesn't tell us whether the person taking the video was an insider or not. We can ask why the full video was not released. I have yet to see any full video from the several media people covering the event. On to the 4:58 point, where the bald man can be seen coming in on the extreme left. His right hand is out of the picture. The device in his hand then appears at 5:00, but at 5:01, his hand is still showing, but the device is not. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for him to position the hand in any way to completely block that large device. There are two options here: 1) he threw the device over the railing a second after we see it at 5:00; 2) it was initially pasted at 5:00, or deleted at 5:01. At 5:02, upon his next step, the video camera supposedly goes up so that his hand is obscured by the window frame. After not showing at 5:03, we are led to assume that he's the bald-headed man (looks too chubby) with sunglasses, at 5:03. I'm a little suspicious here as to how they have his one hand raised to make it appear he just put on his sunglasses, and then there is what looks like a strap around his right hand, arguing for a camera rather than the device. Although there is some compelling evidence here that he threw the device over the railing, why didn't they just "rub out" the device from his hand, if it really was the tool that caused the blast? Back at 3:43, when he's shown with the device, note how his gait doesn't look natural. Besides, he's leaning too much for a mere walk. Perhaps he was on a semi-run. Perhaps he's pasted. The railing is in full view, and his arm could be in the very process of swinging the device over it. At the 3:43 point, there is an area of sidewalk showing where Mr Nopants will go lie in a massive stain of red dye, but, as you can see, there is no red on the sidewalk as Bald Man comes through. The Tang image above (timed at 36 seconds after the blast) has Lime Stripe lying on the sidewalk a little further away than Mr. Nopants. In the video, Lime Stripe is on her feet to a point within about 25 seconds maximum before her lying-down position beyond Nopants (this was not her final resting place). That is, she only has 25 seconds max to make that mess of "blood" that we see under and beside Nopants. Wikipedia has an image (below) that I timed at 28 seconds after the blast, but Lime Stripe is not in it. Blondy and Nopants have already changed positions, but it had to be within the last 10 seconds. They are fully in their positions, not at all in the midst of getting into them. That's pretty fast moving for injured people who thereafter sit/lie for minutes until wheeled away. http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonWikipedia.jpg Above, look at how Bald Man looks like he's running into the heap of actors. He's certainly not taking normal strides, once again. He's even off-level again, as one who turns while at a fast pace, suggesting perhaps that he's pasted in. The view to the spot where Lime Stripe will be, in less than some eight seconds, is blocked by two people, perhaps deliberately so that we are led to believe that she is lying there at this time, when perhaps she could be producing that river of blood along the patio railing. She may have made a mistake with that one because it brought attention to that door. Some seven or eight minutes after the blast, a few men were ganged around the door, perhaps asking who on the inside was responsible for that blood. Or, as we see a woman in a purple top in a stretcher outside that door, perhaps the river of blood and she were planned together i.e. she was inside the door all along. On the other hand, though I can't recall with certainty, this woman with purple top may have been the one inside the railing area, at the corner nearest the door, but therefore not inside the door. Perhaps the river of blood was made on her behalf, or even be she herself, yet the RT video spoiled that plot by showing the line of blood beyond the point where the person inside the railing lay. To see the position inside the railing area, enlarge this image (1:57 minutes after the blast): http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg There is also the issue of Lime Stripe standing in a pool of blood (seen clearly at 5:17). She's looking down at the blood, but she doesn't ask anyone beside her for help. None of the people beside her at her scene when she's lying down. No one where she's standing helped her over to where she lay down prior to the 36-second mark. Next, to the flames that were showing a second or two after the blast. This looks like a smoke-making machine. Let's start at the 2:23 point, where we see a man in white shirt and black backpack at the top-right. He looks completely calm, like he knows what's happening. The "bomb" has already gone off, and just, so that, in a real situation, he should have a bewildered facial expression. He simply stands there, and the woman in blue beside him looks just as casual. Elsewhere in this image, the actors are playing their role. The blast has blown the pants and sleeve off of the one farce who comes running through, meaning that he had to have the opportunity to get dressed like that before the blast went off. It indicates that the place was stacked with actors, coaches, and insiders of other kinds. It can be gleaned that, at 2:26, someone is pouring red "dye" (unknown chemical) out of a coke bottle at the spot where Mr. Burgundy appears from the start. At 2:31, it does appear that a man in white coat has his coat seared with heat from the flame that has begun to appear. There is a good argument here for the authenticity of this scene, and even for the argument that the one taking the video is not an insider, unless we can come up with a good motive for the insiders showing this flame deliberately Judging by the position of Mr. Burgundy over the woman with a double band on her sleeve, as the smoke clears, she is not the one who formed the blood stain, for she is trapped between his legs. Therefore, either Mr. Burgundy poured out the dye, or Blondy. I don't see an alternative suspect. Blondy is in red and black, colors of choice for someone involved in a blood-stain operation, in case they get some blood on their clothing where it shouldn't be. Mr. Burgundy spends far too much time doing nothing for the woman under him, as though he needs to waste time making it look good. It makes no sense that he tries to get her up on her feet when she's not trying to get up herself. Bad acting job gets an F. The first we see of the man with what looks like a slightly-charred white coat is at 2:23. He's kneeling or, better yet, thrusting himself away, and looking away from where the flame will appear momentarily...which makes sense if the flame was too dangerous at first to face. He may have been involved in setting the flame afire. This is not the spot where smoke rises for a few minutes near a hole in the slat fence. This may be the bang device, the bang and smoke device, or the smoke-alone device. I don't have any knowledge in this regard. A split second later, Mr Burnt Coat is not visible, suggesting that he's turned around quickly. Why? Did he know that whatever needed a turning away lasted only a second or two? Lime Stripe appears smack beside this device, where it's best to start spraying her dye before the smoke clears too much. A bald head appears clear at 2:31. Was the window frame placed deliberately to block the flame device at 2:31? At 2:51, we see that the bald head wears sunglasses, and he's looking smug and directly at the flame device. It turns out to be Bald Man. When we see the device in his hand up close (3:50), it appears to have a built-in handle that would NOT wrap around the outside of his hand, as is the black strap-like thing on his hand at 5:03. The device at 3:50 looks like it has a handle that goes inside the palm, not expected to wrap around the outer hand. In the enlargement, note that there are two cylindrical tubes to the mystery device, for it now seems obvious that there were two detonation locations, one per tube. Were these Skinheads? If so, they wouldn't strike me as Zionists. I can see them trying to blame the Zionists, though. Fireman Plourde was almost bald, right? Another near-bald man runs past Mr. Plourde when he's shot carrying Victoria. He runs directly to Nopants, for he's in the RT video at Nopant's location. Did he give the sign to "mom" that her time to go to the street was at hand? "Mom" was at the store front about a dozen feet from Nopants. The third man in the Plourde image, wearing a gun, may also be near-bald (between haircuts?) by the looks of it. Mr. Burnt Coat starts to walk away, away from injury victims, at 2:52. Mom moves in to fill his spot. As later pictures reveal, there was no table set up there for making the flame and smoke, which must therefore have been purely from a hand-held device. Mom will end up in the same door as the "carpenter" goes for. That is, when the caption reads, "A large device is being removed," it looks like a carpenters tool case, the old-fashioned, wooden kind. At 2:59, a dark cap with light logo appears above the window frame, who turns out to be the one with the "tool box." He turns and goes straight for the door of a store. He doesn't look dressed like a carpenter, fixing a door, for example, prior to the explosion, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, why is he more interested in his thing than helping the needy / hurting / frightened / dying people? Come to think of it, the box that he picked up may have had a fire extinguisher, just in case. When all went well, the box was picked up and carried away. At 3:00, Bald man still stands there, uninterested in helping any injury victims, completely non-real. The rest of the crowd looks just as uninterested. At the upper left, there's a man in white coat with a drinking cup in his hand, casual, just watching, completely unreal for a situation some 5-10 seconds after an explosion. It's not like these people have been at explosions regularly every couple of years so that they should remain so clam. At 3:11, there could be something in Bald's right hand. My image is too faint to tell. In the next frame, his hand is obscured by the window frame, it figures. At 3:13, there are a set of legs with dark pants below the window frame, but they do not match up with anyone above the window frame. These legs are too straight-up to be of the man leaning over, and then too long and too-wrongly positioned to be the legs of Bald Man. Therefore, especially as they have Bald Man looking too chubby at 5:03, it's starting to appear that paste jobs of Bald Man have been part of this scam. They may have deleted him in places with a replacement. I followed Bald Man's movements from start-to-finish, until he's gone for good, back in 2013. He was way too large in this image below where he can be seen bending over the bomb spot still smoking slightly. His head is significantly larger than those closer to the camera. But why did they paste him looking over the bomb spot? http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg Not once did I see anything in his hand. That apparent camera lens that we saw must therefore have been pasted. How many others were pasted? For example, that man in all blue, who blocks the line of sight to Jeff, never does anything for anyone, but walks around in circles. Something like that could be a paste job. There is no sign of anything pertaining to Jeff's body in the picture. He is pasted in other images between this man in blue and Mr. Burgundy Coat. Between these two men, there is a third with yellow vest and white shirt. In a video by a Boston video, the latter can be seen walking over to his position, meaning that he walked right past the spot where Jeff is supposed to be. Right now, Jeff is supposed to be directly behind him, but, as you can see, this man with yellow vest has not engaged poor Jeff lying there without legs. Nor is there anyone else tending Jeff, and the time of this image is three seconds shy of two minutes after the blast. It is so obvious that Jeff isn't there that one should become terrible disturbed about the condition of Americans unable to see this for what it is. Even if you tell them what I just told you, they still have a hard time believing that all the major media are part of the insider gang. I am of course not trying to start a government uprising, as if I could, anyway. But the people of the world need to realize how rotten things have become in government, which is an indication of things to come, and things that have already come. The leaders responsible for events like this are an example of those who soak their bad attitudes everywhere, in social, business, and recreational life. Everyone knows that the American entertainment business has become a tool of corruption for the global masses. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. But there are those who deny the existence of the corruption in order to have more people drenched in it, and the deniers don't realize that a corrupted society will come round to bite them badly in many ways. They are determined to war against God, and to win, and I truly think that the likes of Obama have such an attitude. Why? Because they have done rotten things, and God remains quiet, no strike-back, no consequences, because He wants to show His people how far the godless will go in their corruption, until the time arrives suddenly for Payback. That's how I see it. Mr. Burgundy is essentially beside Jeff, but has not called anyone to tend to Jeff. Mr. Burgundy himself should be tending to Jeff, of course, since the woman he's dealing with merely has a gouge in one leg. He could call anyone over to help her while he goes over to Jeff, since he's acting as though he cares so much. But when you become convinced that Jeff wasn't there, and that people were pasted in, you then ask who the responsible parties were that created the paste jobs. As these images were available from day one, or nearly so, it's clear that the perpetrators of the faked bomb also created these tampered images. And that means the two men accused of setting off the bomb were either actors playing along (i.e. the one brother is not really dead), or they have murdered / persecuted innocent men on behalf of their faked event. Behind the crouched woman in black (image above) beside Mr. Burgundy, there is a medic acting like he's fixing up the Negro woman, and he's even facing Jeff at this time. He would have seen Jeff long ago if he was really there, yet he helps a woman with minor injuries instead, which is simply not reality. She goes off on the stretcher first, instead of Jeff. What does it say about the condition of Americans when the government can get away with this while there are upwards to 50 reasons for signalling a faked event, reasons all told by various online voices, all of them ridiculed instead of being praised? The image above even shows two police officers doing nothing who could be tending to Jeff at this time. The lady with white bag is looking toward Jeff, but she ends up walking right on by without as though he were not there. Bald Man is walking right by Jeff in his image with the camera, but seems oblivious to his existence. The "cowboy" (Mr. Arredondo) who took credit for putting Jeff into his wheelchair is in the image supposedly jumping over the scaffolding. But he goes on, not to help Jeff, but to roll up the wood-slat fence. We must assume that he decided the fence removal to be more important than poor Jeff without his legs. It will be an unknown amount beyond four minutes more before Jeff is wheeled away, but of course we don't know for certain where Jeff was at this time. Look at the man with grey hood, who has supposedly been beside Jeff from the start. He's not calling cowboy over to come help Jeff, nor has he called anyone to help Jeff, nor has he tried to get up to help Jeff himself. Can you possibly be blind enough that this image alone doesn't convince you that the event was staged? There is hope for you if you've never been shown things like this, but, having had it explained while still being incapable of seeing, I have great concern for the condition of your mentality. Many have political and job-keeping reasons not to speak out, but that doesn't keep anyone from secretly acknowledging the truth. Look at all that glass blown toward the bomb. How do you think that happened? Won't you allow this fact to speak to you? Media people have a business to run, and cannot speak out due to the great number of organized, government trolls who will seek to damage them. But, for God's sake, at least acknowledge the truth. Don't just ignore this and assume nothing in the future will be affected, for they must be doing rotten things as we speak, and they have a lot of money to do it with. The wicked want your support to invade and change the Middle East. A world government cannot come about without killings. There has never been an attempt at forming a world government that didn't have the fundamental agenda of killing those opposed until the rest submit by force. No one would even try to form a world government without having killings as part of the plan. Western intrusion into the Ukraine is part of the globalist plot. Western intrusion into the Middle East by Bush was part of the global order. His father even confessed to participating in a new world order when he was the president. This globalist hive does exist. It doesn't have a front door with a sign, but it does exist, and the members know who one another are. Every ear, Bilderberg globalists meet with full police, media and government protection, while inviting politicians from the areas of their globalist concerns. Don't you think that this is one expression of many for the global movement? Don't you think that they are moving everything to a "global village," where everything is one theme for everyone, no different colors allowed? But what will they do to us when they increase in power? We don't know, because they aren't telling. We know they are killing their leading enemies, because there is no way to form a global order apart from doing so, and retaining it once achieved will require killings with a lot more efficiency and speed. The Western media are terrified of them, and do as they command. They purchase entire nations and force their media to submit. They have been stomping on Christianity over several generations, and came to control sufficient political structures, in the latter half of the 20th century, to go forward in a global reach. They now have the ability to spy on any online computer, a situation predicted to become worse as they secure deeper partnerships with stooges controlling the Internet. They will infiltrate and then possess control of the Internet where possible (no brainer). They had at least one of their trolls reading my Boston-Marathon material in 2013. I know it because someone emailed me to say that they knew Jeff personally, and that he did have legs before the bombing. They are keeping watch over everything in order to eradicate enemies, by ridicule if nothing else, but we are hoping for a giant collision when they go head-to-head with God. Until now, they have been soft on His people. But for how much longer? There is little use trying to topple these invisible worms. By the fact that they have no front door, nor list of membership available to the public, they become worms. There is no better definition for such an organization. They pay sleek centipedes and hard-headed beetles to do their dirty work, and stay detached enough to protect themselves against court proceedings should things go wrong in their dirty work. The centipedes and beetles risk their lives by working for them, because they stand great risk at being killed off when they grow to know too much. The globalists have a wormhood to which they can appeal when in trouble. They are generally on the satanic side of things, and much of their political fuel is from their hatred of Christianity. It is predictable that, when they see opportunity enough, they will begin systematic Christian persecution. It's more pleasant to believe that they are kind individuals sincerely concerned for everyone's rights and advancements, but the red flags suggest that this is not the case, but is rather the false facade they erect in order to find popular support...until they are powerful enough to betray even those who supported them. Taking such a negative view places me in their "conspiracy nut" camp, predicting a day when it will be against the official law to be such a nut. All we need to do to make them stronger is to acknowledge that they don't exist as I've just portrayed them. Within 20 years, we could be tightly in their shackles, but there is coming an Earthquake, in the Middle of the Night, to set us free from our dungeons. Flight 93 Could Not Have Crashed The Boston Marathon pales in comparison to 9-11. What better flag do we need than 9-11 to teach us how diabolical the American globalists are? We should be thankful, in a sense, for these events, for they have opened the eyes of many as to what's truly going on in U.S and some European governments. Unfortunately, many 9-11 truthers are also anti-Christians who will keep to themselves when struggling against globalism, and may turn a blind eye when Christian persecution increases. The foul Christian figment in the Republican party is working to assure persecution of every Christian stripe, and Obama has gotten its wheels rolling already. We saw the evidence that Obama has been using government people to spy on Christian organizations. It would be foolish of us to listen only to the reports but then go no further by gleaning between the lines. There is a lot more taking place under the radar than the few things that surface in some media. In a sense, we should welcome severe persecution if it's only for a short time, and I think this is exactly what God has in mind. Short and quick, game over for the worms. I saw the evidence with my own eyes, but so did hundreds of millions of others. There was a smoking hole in the ground in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. I didn't see plane parts in the hole. There were small metal parts strewn about in the hole, but nothing that could be proven to be part of Flight 93. The authorities and the media reported that the plane penetrated fully into the ground, to be fully buried in the dirt. I said, "you're nuts," but hundreds of millions of people bought it. Yes, they believe the ground opened up for this plane, then closed itself up again, and that the impact was so clean that no dirt or plane debris was spattered around the hole. Yes, that is an excellent indicator on how terribly deluded the masses have become, whom we cannot depend on in the time of our troubles...in large part because they will be blind to, or even cheering, our persecution. Domenick DiMaggio, a private Flight-93 investigator: "wally miller {Indian Lake mayor] confirmed for me that there wasn't any debris at all to the east of the crater." East of the crater is in the open field, with Indian lake beyond it. The perpetrators had all the debris in the forest, which was not the flight path, but to its right, and yet had no debris to the left of the flight path. How does that happen? No explosion can have eyes like that unless it's in the barrel of a gun. Explosions in open air pack a force in a direction of 360 degrees. The hole at Pennsylvania is online for anyone to see. I can't recall the exact distance, but the hole was some 600 feet from a scarp yard, or the yard's office. It should seem obvious to us that the perpetrators did not order a truck load of scrap metal to be dumped in and around the hole apart from the neighboring scrap yard knowing about it. In other words, this neighboring business knew that the hole was being fixed to look like a plane wreck. We can be sure precisely due to the yard being so close to the hole. If the scrap yard was not privy to the hoax, the perpetrators would have found another place to fake it, not risking the high chance that the scrap-yard people would discover the plot. Obviously. But, going the one obvious step further, we realize that the scrap yard itself provided the junk strewn in and around the hole. The perpetrators did this obvious thing knowing beforehand that they would not suffer court action. Their reach of power is far-greater than anyone imagined. 9-11 taught us that, if only we are brave enough to look at it. The Google page below has some photos of the hole. The page comes with an abundance of images to strike your heart, having the effect of deceiving you. Have the wisdom to know that some / all images of the crash zone have been tampered with. I have never-before seen the image (page below) with what looks like the tail of a plane at one end of the hole. I don't know what this image is about, but the hole where you see the tail fin is NOT the hole shown in the original picture for Flight 93. The original pictures are those having over-turned dirt in chaotic fashion (i.e. not showing a smooth central crater) but with some grass still growing on the inside of the hole, as though they used a hole to begin with but over-turned some of its soil to make it deeper / create ridges on the perimeter. Look at how clean the grass is around the hole. https://www.google.ca/search?q=9-11+%22flight+93%22&biw=831&bih=380&tbm=isch&imgil=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%253Ba1VBn13I2xStFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252F911review.com%25252Ferrors%25252Fphantom%25252Fflight93.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%252Ca1VBn13I2xStFM%252C_&usg=__FZiOJfODlwyRawXoqnTQTN4fGhY%3D&dpr=1 The hole has been designed in aerial views with long, cleaner depressions representing wing impacts, and even the central crater is smoothly round so that your mind cannot get the wrong impression as to what may have fallen into this hole. But other images show a differently-shaped hole...serving to expose the stupidity (or call it desperation) and great powers owned by the perpetrators, for in altering the images, they expose the fakery further, but as they have yet to go to court, they obviously have power over the risks presented by their stupidity. One can put it another way: serving to expose the stupidity of the people so that the perpetrators thought they could get away with changing the shape of the hole...and, they apparently did get away with it. Legally, they have nothing to worry about if its not known who submitted the tampered aerial view to the Internet. Some will say that there is no need of typical plane parts at this hole simply because the hole shows the wing marks and a central crater. They would argue, what more does anyone need to know that a plane hit here? The government criminals were banking on your taking that position. In those days, it was firmly believed by the powers that what you see in an image is what you are to believe as the reality. They had no idea that a significant uprising would come against them for years after 9-11. It should be obvious to you that the hole (ignoring the ones with long wing marks) was freshly excavated with a common excavator. Freshly excavated dirt will grow significant grass and weeds within two months prior to September, but the over-turned dirt does not show such. No matter how you may envision a plane striking the ground at a near-vertical, the fuel is expected to burst into a massive explosion, not to penetrate into the ground. The explosion is expected to send plane parts all around the hole. The flimsy aluminum housing that is the bulk of the plane is not expected to penetrate into the ground like a hard iron beam, but will rather break up and splash all around. I know you have sense enough to know that, until you start hearing the insiders at blogging sites who are there to curb your thinking so that you will focus on their phrases and ignore certain keys. They will emphasize the great force of the plane and the soft dirt, but dirt compacts and is much more resistant to collisions than you may envision. Put it this way, where have you ever heard of a plane completely disappearing into the dirt? Be wise enough to know that the best arguments / websites on behalf of truthers are likely being buried by Google so that you won't find them (at least not easily). Also, the insiders are expected to create web pages feigning truthers when in fact the pages present subtle arguments that benefit insiders. Below is an aerial view of the hole. Note how short the wing depression is on the one side. See if you can estimate the tip-to-tip span of the wing gash. I see significantly less than 100 feet. In fact, using this aerial image (or see it here) to compare with a road that looks to be no wider than two large-truck widths, or about 15 feet, the tip-to-tip distance looks to be about 50 feet across, less than half the wing span on Flight 93. In the top-right corner, they have the tampered image. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1.jpg As the image above is not as reflective of a plane as the NBC one below, the above was likely the original, and they have it in low resolution. The crater is not smoothly round, and much larger (in comparison to the wing markings) than the smoothly-round crater in the image below. The two images are clearly not the same; at least one of them was tampered with. The one below is provided with the crater nearer to the camera than the wings, while the opposite is true for the image above, meaning they may have flipped their tampered one around to make a comparison harder. Even so, the differences are readily noticed. Below, the wing span furthest from the viewer is the one furthest from the road. Look at how long the wing span is from the edge of the crater. There is shade (from the trees) on the ground at the crater as though the tamperers were trying to make the wing span seem a little shorter. Note that they seem to have made the wing scars deeper into the ground than pictures at ground level indicate. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2.jpg The image below looks identical with the one above, aside from being flipped around a bit, and with the grass green. One can make out that the shade from the trees is identical between both images. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2B.jpg The image below was taken likely by the same plane / helicopter a few minutes later, and the grass is now a different color once again. Why? Were they distributing these tampered images as though taken from different planes / cameramen in order to falsify the real look of the hole? http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2D.jpg The tampered one below has different tree-shade shape but once again it's provided at the crater area i.e. making it harder to notice the differences at a glance. The shade and what could be a slightly-enlarged crater makes the wing span seem shorter, once again, than the image having no shade. I'm suggesting that while they probably had many images to choose from, they chose ones with shade at the crater. These are the only images available, apparently, telling that there was an enforced restriction at the site for taking aerial photos. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg Now take a look at the real hole again, which is in low resolution because it's been enlarged from a shot from very far up in the sky (could be a satellite image). Still, one can see that the central crater has a different shape than on the tampered ones. There are no long wings spans on either side. And that's why they had NBC and others distribute images with tree shading. Right? The tree shading indicates that they tampered with the images before distributing them. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1C.jpg For proof, see the image below showing the hole from a camera on the ground. It's showing a SHORT depression for what we are to believe was the wing scar, which, as you can see, is too unreal to be a wing scar from a powerful nose dive. There is no way that a plane wing crashed there, but the insiders originally thought that a shabby job (by the excavator) was sufficient...because they thought no one would suspect the hoax or scrutinize the images presented to the news. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg The real hole image above from way up has the following caption under it: "P200058 - Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - uscourts.gov [hi-res]" (square brackets not mine). We may suppose that, for court purposes, they had to hand in the real, untampered image. This and other images above were borrowed from this photo gallery: http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html Excavation of the site, by the government, began in days, destroying the original look of the hole in case anyone flew over to take a picture. No doubt, a no-fly zone over the area was in place. Therefore, all we have to go with are the government-supplied pictures. Or, put it this way, that if the media were allowed to fly over to take pictures, the photo gallery above would likely more than the two of images from planes/helicopters provided, which were the two taken within an hour apart (i.e. the two with the near-identical tree shading). I'd say you can call that government control, not free press. And it's media-winked government control too. Below is the same hole from the same direction of the one taken along the ground, but a little further back and at an earlier time of the day (while the smoke was more pronounced). The depression was not formed on that day but was there already, as the green grass indicates. That is, some of the green grass is already sloping into the wing hole. It looks like the ground was simply scratched a little to make it look freshly disturbed. The reason for the shortness of the wing slice may have been due to the excavator' shovel incapable of reaching further with the machine positioned in the central hole. Plus, the central hole was required larger in order to have the excavator reach further out for the wing job. They could have used a larger excavator, but the perpetrators thought a shabby job would do the trick. Besides, the machine used may have been the largest one that the scrap yard had. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing2.jpg In the aerial view, one can see that the hole starts smack at the side of a road so that any clean up of the excavator's tracks would have been fast and easy. Ask whether it was a coincidence that the plane would come down with one wing tip smack on the shoulder of a road. But there is another problem; they didn't make the hole wide enough, thinking that no one would bother to measure it. The image below is one from someone who did bother. They have the plane in the hole along with trucks on the side of the street, showing that the wing span of Flight 93 should have crossed completely across the road: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93ToScale.jpg If the plane in the image above is correctly to scale (anyone can easily verify whether it's correct or not), then the wings of the aircraft would have bounced off the road, made a mark/gash in the road, and wing parts should be nearby and scattered along the road, but none of this is the reality at this site. Take the image above showing the crater around the green grass, and find how many body lengths there are from crater-edge to crater edge. I count about seven. Enlarge the image below and do the same measurement to find that the hole is now only about three or four human-body lengths across. Which images can we trust? It doesn't matter, because the very fact that tampering has been provided to the public from news people proves that we are not being treated with honesty. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Hole.jpg In a court of law, the word of a policeman against a defendant is taken as evidence. It doesn't matter whether the policeman is lying; it's taken as evidence until someone can prove that a lie was told. In the same way, the word of the FBI at the crash site is taken as legal evidence. If the FBI says that it dug up plane parts at the crash site, it's taken as evidence. It can be used against anyone claiming that no plane crashed there. It doesn't matter that the FBI had total control of the site, the fact that many FBI people agree with the same storyline is the evidence that a judge must abide by. But the pieces of plane that were dug out have a voice too, and they will tell the truth, which is why the FBI would never want to go to court on this matter. The pieces of the plane that were dug out were not from Flight 93, and the FBI likely did not allow any independent person to inspect these pieces. They likely did a shabby job by providing wrong pieces, because the entire affair was a major headache for them. It is actually tough to be a law-enforcement agency while breaking the law as they did. It corrupted them. In a court case, the defendant would have the right to prove that the FBI was lying by seeking to convince the judge that no plane landed there. An engineer could easily calculate how deep the aluminum housing (fuselage) of a passenger jet, coming in at a nose dive upon any type of soil system, would penetrate into the ground before finding complete resistance. Although a fuselage looks like a bullet, once its nose cone is compromised, it's nothing but an aluminum shell attached to a couple of floors. The point will be reached when the fuselage breaks away from the floors. Nothing in a plane is made heavier than needed to safely resist potential flight and landing stresses. The fuselage will not be attached to the floors with more metal than needed to fly safe. But, in any case, the aluminum is thin gauge, and will rip away easily from whatever holds it to the floor-joist system. Once the aluminum is ripped away from the heavier items to which its attached, it loses the plane's full momentum, and penetrates the ground as best it can on its own momentum. The aluminum will crumple while it penetrates, but will reach the point where, instead of piercing the ground, the fuselage will solely crumple. However, during crumpling, it's expected to break up into many pieces. We all understand that, in a military-based hoax amounting to a headache of huge magnitude for the FBI, the less work they needed to do to clinch the hoax, the better. Trucking in 85 pieces of fuselage, many of which had to fit together at their tears, just to make the event look absolutely real, was out of the question. The masses had best start to be fooled a lot easier just to make the work of the FBI a lot easier. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Fuselage.jpg I've never heard of an airplane disappearing completely or even partially into the soil. With this "new reality," think of how much cheaper it will be for globalists. Just call up an excavator for two hours, turn the soil a little, and, voila, a plane-crash site. Why even bother with any small debris, for this new reality can sink 100 percent of the plane, like a marble dropped into water. Come to think of it, how do we know that the U.S. military has not, prior to 9-11, faked other crashes by claiming near-complete disintegration of the plane? Here's some news-media quotes borrowed from the killtown webpage below (has covered the Flight-93 crash extensively): "Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.' - Washington Post (05/12/02) "The plane, too, was decimated. The largest pieces were the size of suitcases, the smallest the size of dimes. "It just looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky," Miller said." - Houston Chronicle (09/08/02) ..."Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a 'briefcase.' 'If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash,' he continued. The debris is very, very small.'" "'The best I can describe it is if you've ever been to a commercial landfill. When it's covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal.' - Pittsburgh Live (09/14/01)" "'If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap,' said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. 'There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces.' - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)" http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/debris.html#scrap_yard And that's why the large piece of fuselage wasn't likely there from day one. They had planned to do a shabby job with no one asking questions. They just wanted us to believe that the plane disintegrated. But they turned their headache into a death-wish. Poor slobs, FBI, poor slobs. The webpage continues: 'The mangled heap of iron and steel actually belongs to Rollock Inc., a scrap metal business owned and managed by the father-and-son team of Tony and Chris Kordell of Bedford County. The property they purchased three years ago abuts the crash site, which lies just several yards beyond the perimeter of the Kordells' land.' - pittsburghlive.com (09/11/02) (*Remember that the only reported witness to actually see Flight 93 reportedly crash was Lee Purbaugh, who was ex-Navy and only on his 2nd day of work at Rollock.) It sounds like he was "hired" just to act as a witness, which is how we can know all-the-more that Rollock was involved with this crime. There is no other explanation. The crime could not have taken place had not Rollock employees been a part of it. They were supposed to make the FBI's job easy. Instead, by their shabby job, they announced to the world that this was a hoax. If anyone's listening, that is. The tampered image has the wing span nearly as large as that of Flight 93, meaning that the image had the gouge 125-150 feet long. But here's a news report that says otherwise: Reporter: How big would you say that hole was? Konicki: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20ft to 15ft long and probably 10ft wide [agrees with other witness above]. Reporter: What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash and... Konicki: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees..." - FOX (09/11/01)http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crater.html Broken trees? From what? They must have had a plan for the broken trees. The page above has the hole with two people beside it that allows one to measure the top of the hole to about 20 feet wide, expected because that's roughly the width of a fuselage. But one side of the hole looks smooth, not machined, as though it had been there from an earlier time. The image is in good resolution and shows the wing scar, ech-hem, the joke, up close. Apparently, judging by the report of killtown, no local person saw a pillar of smoke, nor a drenching of the soil with fuel, and no one said they smelled fuel. "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth,' Parsons reported. 'It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth.' - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)" Are we to be gullible enough to accept the storyline that the jet fuel went into the soil, fuel tanks and all? The alternative is to believe that the American government has conspiracy crews at all levels, and in all nooks, of American life. It was a little hard to come to terms with in the beginning, but I'm settled on it now. American history will never look the same again. Even if you believe the other explanations, you need to grapple with this fuel problem. It's important as to how you will view the state of the global government at this time. If this crash was impossible, so was all of 9-11 an inside job. The perpetrators can't have it every way. The faster it was moving, the greater the chances, above 99 percent, that the fuel would burst into flames on the ground. No one really knows how fast the plane was moving, since it wasn't there, or because no one had a devise to measure its speed even if they did see it. The report that it was moving 500 mph or more is based on the need to explain a buried airplane showing no plane parts. Some news reports tell of the soft soil in that area, and some claim that the land was recently backfilled. However, the softer the dirt, the deeper the crater. The crater was not deep at all when compared to craters of other crashes, and yet their argument is that the soil was softer than most soils. That doesn't work. I've just read the example of a dart shot into flour where, instead of making a large hole, there is barely any evidence of the dart's entry point. But dirt isn't flour, and no one I've read has given a prior example for such a dart-scenario accomplished between a crashing plane and dirt. When war missiles (very much like darts) hit the ground and explode, they cause craters, not the dart-flour effect. And Flight 93 supposedly exploded, according to the authorities who provided a video of a black, smoky cloud rising from the "crash site." But that video serves only to prove the hoax because, instead of a constant pillar of smoke from long-burning jet fuel, there is a short cloud burst only, as though from an explosion(s) by some other means, without the ignition of jet fuel. Apparently, the eye-witness at the scrap yard reported no pillar of smoke, and no one at seeing the site caught any such thing on video or camera. The best we saw in the provided images: no more smoke than would be caused by the burning of a bushel of wet weeds. "When asked by a reporter: 'Any large pieces of debris at all?... Smoke? Fire?' 'Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke. No fire.'" It sounds like the smoke was very temporary, and for all we know, the smoke we see in the images was pasted to the scene. Why is there only one image of the plume of smoke at the initial explosion? Wouldn't the person who caught it on camera take more pictures to show the forthcoming pillar of smoke from the burning fuel? Yes, she would have, but no, she couldn't, because that would give away the hoax when no such pillar developed. Instead: "A large rising mushroom cloud was photographed within seconds after impact by Val McClatchey, who was nearly shaken off her couch by the crash [= insider giving false testimony], causing her to run out with her new digital camera and without aiming, snapped the only known photograph of the explosion before dropping her camera." Ah, I see. Who can prove otherwise? The people who failed to see the column of smoke. For, if an explosion took place at the crash, there is no way to avoid igniting the fuel that would have splashed out when the tanks broke up upon impact. Who are you going to believe, McClatchey, or your good senses? Don't you know that a plane moving over 500 mph cannot avoid broken gas tanks? Do you think that the tanks went into the "spongy" soil unbroken? What spongy soil. That occurs only in forests, and then such peat is very shallow, anyway, in inches, not dozens of feet. But some use the example of water, far more easily to push aside than spongy soil: "Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if 'the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon'." Soil is not water, but, yes, we get the message. But do you really think that the soil you see in the images, filled with stones and rocks, could act like water around a spoon? Hello? "A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane 'went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.'" Obviously, the person who excavated the place at the request of the FBI was an insider. Obviously. He had been prepared in advance, and he didn't speak his own words, but the authorities put the words into his mouth that he should speak. And so the storyline has been that the soil, once forced away from the plane's sides due to the massive force of entry, instead of splashing outward all around, came back toward the plane so fast, like water around a spoon, that the fuel didn't have a chance to explode due to lack of oxygen. But what caused the McClatchey cloud of smoke, then? http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html A spoon dropped gently into coffee doesn't have a tank of jet fuel to blow the water away in all directions. A spoon or dart doesn't break into small pieces like the skin of an aircraft. A proper comparison cannot use something stronger than a plane, such as a dart or spoon, and something less resistant than the soil, such as flour of water. To make the comparison properly, one needs to fire a tube into flour the thickness of tin foil. You now have a hard time imagining such a tube penetrating more than a miniscule amount before crumpling. The aircraft tube has no sharp point, or hard, solid nose, as does a dart, for moving aside the "flour." You are being deceived when they cause you to view the passenger jet like a spoon or dart. And the rocky soil at the crash site was not dry flour. In fact, they forgot to mention the many rocks that you see in the dirt that are a fundamental part of the "flour." Soil has some organic cementing agents mixed with humidity that packs extraordinarily strong. The more you compress soil, the harder it tends to resist penetration. You shouldn't imagine an indestructible nose cone as it paves the way through this rocky soil for the rest of the tube. Nor should we ignore the hard objects and materials with flat faces within the plane, not predicted to penetrate rocky soil like a dart through dry flour. Try shooting a dart into humid flour to see whether such substance will flow back around the penetrated dart. The humidity makes the flour stick to itself, which is definitely the case for soil, so that it won't tend to flow back to close the entry hole. The illusion of dirt flowing back upon itself is facilitated by the images of the soil that we see, where the soil was freshly overturned with an excavator. It gives the impression that the dirt could roll back to close the hole, but in fact, a plane ramming into that soil would compact it all around, and in the meantime would splash much of it some distance away, depending on how wet (i.e. soft and sticky) it was. We saw no dirt or rocks splashed away because the perpetrators were lazy, thinking that no one would ask questions. But rocks are not sticky no matter how wet, and they are crusty so that anything striking them will send them flying. We saw not even one rock on the grass outside the hole. We can't ignore the velocity of the plane. One could appeal to the plane's high velocity in acting like a bullet cleanly penetrating dirt, but there is no precedent for a plane entering dirt like a bullet through soft butter. That's because the skin of a plane is not like a solid bullet. As per the two planes that reportedly entered the twin towers, the perpetrators wanted you to view them like a bullet through butter rather than a thin tube penetrating thick, steel columns. How thick is the aluminum housing of a large passenger plane? I don't know. I can't find the answer online in the way I can't find many things about aircraft that can be used against the 9-11 hoax. But regardless of the gauge, the aluminum would be blown apart by the fuel. here's a powerful argument to add: "Subsequent studies by the EPA of the crash site have confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been pervasive had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there." In this case, the authorities could not persuade the EPA to provide a false / distorted / slanted statement on their behalf. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It is amazing how many pieces of plane parts turned up in the forest across the street from the hole while no such parts are visible around the hole. Why should that be? Well, for one thing, any outsider might have driven by the road BEFORE the crash was slated to begin, and seeing plane parts around the hole, it would have spoiled the operation. Instead, they littered the hole area with small items not visible, or not interesting, from the road. That makes too much sense not to be the truth. And here's an insider who mentions the pieces of fuselage in the forest: Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said [neither can I]. "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker. The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said. A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods. http://www.unitedflight93.com/ A plane 40 feet above your head is an awesome thing along with the ground-shaking landing just 900 feet away (they may have exaggerated that distance) = one second away. What caused the "mushroom of flame"? Did only a small amount of jet fuel escape the tanks? How could a small amount of jet fuel, escaped from the tanks, explode rather than just becoming a flame on the ground? Or did someone plant an explosive device? How could jet fuel reach across the road to the forest -- sideways from the plane's path -- but not forward to the open field ahead of the plane? Or, why did most-everything happen in the forest? The following can help explain which scenario is the correct one: "Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. 'The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees." Oh, I see, clothes hanging in the forest, but no clothes in the open field, or on the shoulder, or on the street, only where they could be hidden from drivers-by. "Rick King, 42, of Shanksville, was behind the wheel of the first fire truck to arrive at the crash scene...heard Flight 93 scream overhead, seen a massive fireball light up the sky and felt an explosion rock the entire town of Shanksville...But besides a burning landing-gear tire, smoldering branches in the nearby WOODS [caps mine] and a few brush fires, there was little to indicate a jetliner had just crashed, he says." Let's tackle some other nearby residents, workers and eye-witnesses, trying to determine which of them were the deliberate liars, and to check for inconsistencies. It seems to be an overwhelming fact that there was an explosion with fire and smoke. Granted. Ten miles away, at a warehouse near Berlin, employee Don Miller and co-workers felt their building shake [how low is a plane when the building shakes?]. "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane. "Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that." This is a tough one. The reason for such a claim can be to "prove" to the masses that this was no ordinary flight, i.e. could be none other than Flight 93 in terrible trouble. The only way that it could have been flying upside down is where it was a military craft like you'd see at an air show. But no one in this list of witnesses has reported what looked like a military craft. It's important to note how low the plane was while ten miles away. In my opinion, however, the perpetrators would not have been flying that low where the goal was to fly low only over Shanksville, to do a fly-over. Still, we can use Mr. Miller's testimony against others, for example, Terry Butler (from Stoystown Auto Wreckers at the time) who claims the plane "dropped out of the clouds" before turning over a ridge of trees and crashing a second afterward. He didn't see the crash; he only heard the "crash," which was merely an explosive device. If he's a true and sincere witness, then he seems to contradict the story of Don Miller. That is, it seems more credible that the plane would drop from the clouds only when approaching Shanksville. Does a plane come out of the clouds upside down? Mr. Butler claims to have seen the entire flight from out of the clouds, except for one second after it went over the ridge. But he said nothing of a plane flying upside down "for a few seconds [to be followed by] a nose dive". Instead, he said that it banked to the right. If it had flipped upside down, he would have said so. It is a little suspicious, however, that Butler used the "flip" word: "...it just went flip to the right and then straight down." "Flip to the right" is not usually taken to mean "flipped upside-down," but is a figure of speech to indicate unexpectedness and/or deliberation in making a right turn. Still, one wonders whether he was part of the insiders who were being told the flip word a lot. The fact that Butler has the plane turning sharp and down into a nose dive likewise makes me suspicious. He was about three miles from the crash site. Did he really see it all that way? I do believe that a plane went through that area, otherwise there would have been an abundance of locals claiming to hear nothing. But I don't think they would ask the pilot to do a quasi-nose dive with a passenger jet to feign a crash-about-to-happen. The option wherein they used a military jet, one that looked as much as possible like a passenger jet, is not out of the question. If they had it flying low and near the speed of sound, no one might get a close enough look to make out the type of craft. At the map below (you might need to zoom in), the crash site is at the Memorial. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stoystown+Auto+Wreckers/@40.096441,-78.93995,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x80d7209855b10003 The map should be showing the location of Stoystown Auto Wreckers. Note the flight path from the wreckers to the memorial, in a south-eastward direction. The viewer, Mr. Butler, for example, was looking at he tail end of the plane moving away from him, and the crash was three miles off. Is it really true that he could see the plane do a nose dive from that distance? Only if it was relatively high in the sky, but not if it was hugging the tree lines. That may explain why this particular witness choose to have the plane drop from the clouds, because no one in his area would believe him if his testimony agreed with others, where the plane was so low it shook buildings. Back to the scrap-yard worker (at Rollock), who was interviewed some minutes after his first testimony (mentioned above), when he said: "Purbaugh describes the crash as "just like a big mushroom cloud." He says when it hit, it 'shook the ground, rolled over in some way and then collapsed'..." It hit the ground and then rolled over in some way??? That's got to be a mistake. But he's the only person who saw the plane hit the ground, and in this case, it says he was only 200 yards away, not 300. I mean, this testimony is the best anyone has of what happened at ground zero, and he says the plane rolled over AFTER it hit. How can that be reconciled with a smooth dart penetrating flour and becoming covered over again??? I'm sure that I can explain the contradiction correctly: this false witness never saw any plane hit, and he was supposed to say something like it had rolled over on its back before striking the ground, but screwed up and put the roll-over AFTER the landing. Here's another entry: "Minutes later, the plane crashed in rural Somerset County, about 20 miles away. 'It was like an atomic bomb hit," said John Walsh, 72,..." An "atom bomb" from 20 miles away is an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? I don't think he heard a thing, especially as the fuel tanks didn't explode while the dart just entered smooth into the soft, buttery, newly-backfilled, spongy dirt that had the nature of coffee enveloping a spoon. Here's another account of Miller's testimony: Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground...As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene [who would have been so busy elsewhere at the time that they needed to drive away from this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle?]... Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires [nothing blazing extraordinarily, apparently]. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers [clearly, nothing blazing extraordinarily] they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department. ...What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later. Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we'll save that for later. ...Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next. The webpage above shares the story of the sighting of a small white plane at the "crash site" seconds before the explosion went off. I suppose it's possible that his plane detonated an explosive device. Here's a testimony to be trusted because it shares what the perpetrators would not have coached their false witnesses to say: "Laura Temyer of Hooversville...'I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.'" There were others who reported the engines going quiet briefly before the explosion, and so I think we can chalk up that item on the side of the real facts. In another testimony of Laura's, her thumps were called "booms." Here now is a thud sound: Viola Saylor of Lambertsville was outside talking to her sister. "We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud." Once again we see, the engines went quiet. One scrap-yard worker said he heard the plane coming in for 10-15 seconds, which amounts to four or more miles away, but here in Viola's testimony, the sound didn't start until the plane was overhead. This may indicate a soft glide down from cloud levels, with some engine roar for the fly-over across ground zero so that a soft glide afterward will get the plane further away. It's obvious that the plane had to go quiet, by design, for the explosion. It is of obvious importance that the plane should not be heard by anyone after the explosion(s). But once far enough from ground zero, it would have accelerated (quietly) and slipped away through a pre-determined path (with sparsest population?). The webpage from which the eyewitness reports were taken has this remark: Some of the conspiracy believers claim there was no crash in the field and that the impact crater was faked. Yes, really! Well then, if there was not a plane crash, and no deaths, which means no plane was shot down, which means . . . it was all a fake? If this were true, people are being paid to pretend they lost relatives on the flight! HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE GETTING??http://www.unitedflight93.com/ I don't know. You'd have to ask the people getting paid. The writer then goes on to say: "The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces." We can forgive him/her because it wasn't generally known at first that there was no fuel explosion. Nor was there any unburned fuel found on-site, though tests were conducted to find fuel contamination. We can also forgive him/her because it is hard to come to terms with a conspiracy of this magnitude. But if, after the obvious has been explained, he/she doesn't listen, then he/she is in danger of becoming a wicked-government tool. It can't have a good ending for anyone. This writer is trying their best but is really coming up shy of reality because he/she is convinced the plane landed there. "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air." The writer is trying to explain how some parts got into the forest or the pond, or eight miles away, but fails to see what's before the eyes in the close-up pictures, where small fragments litter the over-turned dirt but do not appear on the adjacent, undisturbed soil. It seems that their inability to believe in a faked crash makes them draw back from focusing hard enough on the undisturbed soil to see what it's saying to them. A fuel-tank explosion requires a sweeping plot of devastation the likes of which is missing in the photos presented to us. It's actually quite incredible how easily we humans can be deceived. It could have been me; it could have been you. Virtually every truther was deceived, at first. That's because we trusted. We were guilty of nothing but trusting our fellow man. "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away." I've just got to shake my head. How does the writer envision such a magnificent force while failing to see the undisturbed soil just six inches past the crater? One can even argue that small rocks still on the GRASS should not be there after a massive explosion. I make my share of stupid mistakes when not fully attentive to things, but in this case, if one wants to speak on a massive explosion, there is no way to be inattentive to that grass growing as far as into the wing scar, because the fuel tanks were in the wings. Just look at this tall grass: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg They have the center of the hole charred, but the fuel tanks were in the wings, yet the part where the wing scar is claimed to be has tall grass. There's very sloppy work. Plus, how could an explosion send all of those metal fragments onto the over-turned soil, but send none on the undisturbed soil? Did the explosion have eyes? Shouldn't we see fragments on the green grass too? Clearly, there was no explosion at the crash site. It's not necessary that the perpetrators caused their explosion(s) on top of "crash site," or, if they did, the explosion was directed upwards alone for maximum effect in the sky i.e. for maximum visibility from people far off. I have yet to read anyone that says the fire was prolonged. No one snapped a picture of fire. The writer needs to remove his explosion argument lest people take him for a ninny. Or put it this way, that if I have a small camp fire on the grass, whether it's wet or not, the fire starts to creep through the grass as it dries, and one needs to be attentive to keep the fire from spreading. Moreover, some grass near the fire wilts noticeably, but we see no fire-creep in the grass, nor wilting, at a location that supposedly had tanks of jet fuel burning high into the sky for a considerable time. It is clear that the FBI did not allow people to take images of the location, or we would have a lot more to judge by. Perhaps even the four or five pictures that are available were taken by outsiders that were not supposed to get out. That is, the insider plot may have been to keep the public from seeing the green grass, for it makes no sense that they would permit the grass to remain. We can be sure that they are seeking an Internet law or rule that forbids the common people from copying images from news sights. I have seen that already. The question on how the explosion was performed is a good one. Perhaps it launched from the forest, explaining the forest on fire, and some tree damage. The small white plane may have caused it. On the plane debris and body parts scattered about, it's plain that it was planted, or one would see some of it around the crater. Some debris miles away turned up at the same general spot, as though the explosion was playing golf, seeking to drive it to one spot alone. There are various theories on that part of this story, and we should not ridicule those who try to explain it. The ridicule belongs to the ones who put this part of the plot together. They had paper eight miles from the crash site, which looks like an attempt to feign a mid-air explosion...from the bomb that the terrorists supposedly had. It can be seen in various plane crashes that all fuel cannot be instantly consumed during the explosion. The explosion spreads the fuel out so that it burns slowly wherever it lands. There is not sufficient oxygen to consume the entire tanks of gas all at once in a small volume of space. Therefore, as the fire in Pennsylvania did not burn for hours, there was no jet-fuel explosion. The writer is in danger of altering his/her sense of physics reality. From now on, writers such as this are in danger of completely misinterpreting the physics of a plane crash, just as the perpetrators would have them. With educators submitting to the likes of these perpetrators, reality will be distorted in a number of areas. The writer continues: "The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away." That depends on whether the witness(es) can be trusted who say they felt it ten miles away. To shun the possibility of false witnesses is unwise. The plot could not have worked so well without them. The writer himself/herself is a victim of the false witnesses. On the page below, the story on Flight 1771 (1987) sounds a lot doubtful. The plane was reported at extremely high speed (approximately 700 mph), extremely steep angle of descent, with all plane parts on the obliterated side, but with a crash hole only two feet deep and four feet long. ??? The crash came with a suicide message, recovered miraculously, and the police even found the gun of the man who supposedly brought the plane down. It doesn't sound logical for such a plane to cause a hole that shallow in a grassy hill. No engines or heavy beams are visible in the two pictures of the crash site. At one time, no one would have asked any questions, but now is no longer "at one time." "Unburnt paper was flying everywhere [easy to spread around by hand] as small aircraft fuel fires [easy to set up] burned on the ground [why not a pillar of smoke?]. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 [of 43] of the passengers were never identified [or they didn't exist in the first place]. All aboard, including Burke and Thomson, were killed." Providing most of those things was do-able, but providing a large hole with a machine may not have been. Two feet deep and four feet long is do-able quietly by shovel. http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html Faking plane crashes for various reasons may have a history in the several of decades. If the public would buy a two-foot deep hole from a passenger liner moving 700 mph at a 70-degree angle, it was butter in their fingers. One possibility: Flight 1771 was stolen (i.e. never crashed), the airliner collected the insurance by pre-design, and the passenger list was fabricated. At the page above, go down to the box having the plane, Canberra Mk.2 WD991, because it had a crashing speed comparable to the speed claimed for Flight 93, and a nose-dive angle of 80 degrees (we are lost for words). The debris field (image below) shows a large burn mark in the field, as expected of a real crash, and there is plane-piece debris scattered for many planes lengths from the crash spot, as expected, neither of which was the case for Flight 93. The visible pieces are all white, suggesting fuselage pieces, and although they look small, the distance of the camera suggests that these pieces can be as large as four feet long. The high number of them over a wide area is what a person expects, who has a grasp of reality not shifted by the 9-11 goons. The scattered debris is what a normal person expects from a "disintegrating" plane on contact with the ground, because we have never heard before of any plane disintegrating fully into pieces the size of nuts and bolts, or vaporizing altogether apart from hot fire. These concepts are becoming the new reality if the goons can get away with it. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Canberra.gif The fact that 9-11 catapulted the American military into the Middle East describes the nature of the humanity involved in the Middle East. You can't have much confidence in that nature when you see 9-11 as a colossal falsification fed to the American people themselves, while falsely accusing an Arab peoples who were not involved. This has the stink of Nazi's who kill masses brutally and sleep well. This plays very well to the topics of End Times and Lake-of-Fire punishment. It seems that the masses who support these Middle-East intruders will be lumped into those deserving the Lake of Fire. If at first Christians were deceived by the Bush invasion of Iraq, there has been ample time, and ample opportunities, to get it right. If you know that all the nations will be gathered to the Middle East for the punishment of Armageddon, how could you, as FOX news does, or even as World Net Daily does, support the American intrusions into the Middle East. Is that wise, do you think? Whatever goodness American may have guided herself with in decades gone by, it's gone today. In case the sorry job at the "crash" site" convinced some people that no plane came down, the perpetrators had some powerful jabs to their credibility prepared with eye-witnesses who spotted the plane coming down. Some of them heard the plane coming across their houses at low altitude, and as this reported plane took a path close to a street with many houses, one is forced to agree that a plane did fly that way. But was it Flight 93, that is the question? The hole at the scrap yard won't help with the answer. Some of the witnesses are expected to have been insiders who didn't technically lie when saying that they heard / saw a plane. On searching the story of Flight 93, you will come across reports of airplane fragments some six miles or more from the scrap yard, as well as body parts, but why assume it was Flight 93 that flew that way? At the page below, you can read that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport (Ohio) early in the hoax. There was too much information reported about this incident to call it a mistake. The story was retracted for unknown reasons. In this report, there are terrorists aboard Flight 93, and the cockpit mic is left on unwittingly or, to put it another way, by design of the perpetrators, it was necessary that the public hear this fabricated conversation conducted by the faked terrorists on board. They said they had a bomb and were going to land the plane at the airport because they had secured all their demands from the United States. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday [that day, 9-11] at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93." http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/theories.html One possible motive for this part of the plot is that some leading perpetrators felt that site at Pennsylvania was too shabby to go ahead with the plan. So, instead, they were going to land the plane and make a different scenario out of it. Others wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania plot. The sky is the limit here as to the possible theories, but very apparently, the plane landed, and passengers were evacuated; I can't see how the mayor could have had that wrong. Someone contacted him to say that the plane had been evacuated, or was in the process of being evacuated. I don't think we can argue that he made that story up; he must have received it in a phone call / email. Have we got that right? And this helps to explain why no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and why the Cleveland story was retracted after the Pennsylvania crash made the news. Flight 93 wasn't scheduled for Cleveland, and so when United Airlines identified the hi-jacked plane as Flight 93, by what chance could they have had that wrong? The Pennsylvania story had not yet broken on the news i.e. United Airlines did not (was not supposed to) know that Flight 93 would be reported hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania, meaning that when United had Flight 93 at Cleveland, there could be no mistake about it being Flight 93. Their computerized communication systems indicated Flight 93. They didn't dream up the number "93," nor should we argue that they meant some other number but blurted "93" by mistake. Nor should we assume that they communicated some other number but that someone at the other end heard / read it wrongly as 93. These things would be possible if the number had not been reported as 93, but the fact that Flight 93 would be involved, that morning, in a terrorist-heist scenario in Pennsylvania, convinces me that United had correctly conveyed the landing of Flight 93. In another news report concerning the landing: "The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside." That latter claim could indicate the story as desired / reported by those particular perpetrators who wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania hoax. They needed a plane filled with passengers, and perhaps the plot was going to have the hijackers lifting off from Cleveland with passengers in the plane. Instead, they opted to retract the story, deny the landing, and reported the plane doing a U-turn, with hijackers steering it, while in the air near Cleveland. "The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15." How does anyone make such a thing up by mistake, then report it to the mayor? If the mayor was one of the insiders, then he was of the camp that wanted 93 to land. Apparently, the story was going to be that the authorities had successful negotiations with the terrorists. Later in the day, an FBI spokesman entered the news to say that Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland, not 93. But it was the FBI who took control in Pennsylvania, and so how far can we trust this new number? Zero. The FBI quickly took over the story that the media was not to tell, and the FBI lied to the public for the sake of saving the scrap-yard hoax. After half of America was grappling for some time with the wave of "truthers," which has become a sort of dirty word to many, and as the pesky truthers put heads together and got down to some serious business, this came out: "Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly 'crashed' in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville."http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It looks like the plane landed, released the passengers (into confinement?), then took off again for some unknown destination. This plane was seen again in active service (business as usual). Before much longer, the truthers knew they had said too much, that they had the perpetrators at their mercy, and that the time would fast approach for a killing fest if they continued to point fingers. It's predictable that many active truthers and potential-active truthers went quiet(er) once the cat was fully out of the bag. But the perpetrators' worst enemies are those who feign being on the government side. These were created by the perpetrators, by fear, but this very thing has made them the silent enemy that, at any moment, can quietly do damage. Lots of it. Amongst these hushed people are media barons, leading journalists, mayors, judges, police chiefs, you name it, all out there wanting revenge and new/different government leaders. The pendulum must swing the other way, and everyone will reap what they sow. From Griffin's analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes. More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006: (1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville "crash", Todd Beamer's last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer's call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government's own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND! (2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls. (3) Lisa Jefferson [Verizon operator], who reportedly took Beamer's call, failed to mention the phrase "Let's roll" in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer's voice. (4) In fact, the FBI [at court] delayed bringing out the story of "Let's Roll" and the passengers "fighting back" and apparently only did so to stop the story of a [military] flight shoot-down from gaining momentum. (5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air. (article above). The things that should be coming to your mind are the many ways for the government to give false impressions to the public, and that these tactics were not new on 9-11, but well-practiced for decades prior. If nothing more, it has become far more costly for the authorities to conduct hoax's because lazy / sloppy schemes can no longer find success. The Boston Marathon, very sloppy, only added more heads to the truther camps. I probably wouldn't have covered these hoax's except that they have the propensity to play to prophetic themes. A new description of the American and British governments has become necessary while we look forward to fulfilled prophecy. The small taste of "martial law" in Boston, set up merely to find one young, framed man, is indicative of things to come. It wasn't by chance. It was a trial balloon. It showed that the police are the enemy of the public, which is the definition of a police state. A police state is not one that has a police force, but one where the police are in conflict with the people. It can be caused by unruly people, or by corrupt government. Boston's trial balloon was not from the unruly people, leaving only one option: a corrupt Obama. The article above has made a couple of good points concerning the cell-phone calls supposedly from 9-11. Obviously, these calls have one purpose, to fashion in your mind the things that the perpetrators wanted us to believe was the reality. But what's wrong with this particular conversation: Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb." How many times do you tell your mom your last name just in case she doesn't know who you are by your first name alone? I'd laugh except that I'd rather celebrate the jailing of the perpetrators. The Jailor is Coming. The Big Jail has been Prepared. If the perpetrators are not afraid of man due to their overwhelming powers, they should be afraid of Jesus. My position on 9-11 was not rooted in a desire to smear the government or the FBI. I simply and genuinely came to see that no planes landed either at the Pentagon or the scrap-yard site. It is a natural extension of that belief to point fingers at the government and FBI, charging them with the faking of plane crashes. There is nothing more complicated, and certainly nothing diabolical, about that position. It is a logical position: if there were no planes, the government faked the crashes. It's not my horror story, but theirs. I'm just explaining it the best I can; they are the ones who need to answer to it. Instead, they mainly ignore the people who point fingers at them, thus securing their future enemy. They continue to be viewed, and charged, as diabolical operators. They have brought that upon themselves, and will need to deal with it.](http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCowboyFence.jpg){kind=link}
![http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg Now take a look at the real hole again, which is in low resolution because it's been enlarged from a shot from very far up in the sky (could be a satellite image). Still, one can see that the central crater has a different shape than on the tampered ones. There are no long wings spans on either side. And that's why they had NBC and others distribute images with tree shading. Right? The tree shading indicates that they tampered with the images before distributing them. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1C.jpg For proof, see the image below showing the hole from a camera on the ground. It's showing a SHORT depression for what we are to believe was the wing scar, which, as you can see, is too unreal to be a wing scar from a powerful nose dive. There is no way that a plane wing crashed there, but the insiders originally thought that a shabby job (by the excavator) was sufficient...because they thought no one would suspect the hoax or scrutinize the images presented to the news. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg The real hole image above from way up has the following caption under it: "P200058 - Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - uscourts.gov [hi-res]" (square brackets not mine). We may suppose that, for court purposes, they had to hand in the real, untampered image. This and other images above were borrowed from this photo gallery: http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html Excavation of the site, by the government, began in days, destroying the original look of the hole in case anyone flew over to take a picture. No doubt, a no-fly zone over the area was in place. Therefore, all we have to go with are the government-supplied pictures. Or, put it this way, that if the media were allowed to fly over to take pictures, the photo gallery above would likely more than the two of images from planes/helicopters provided, which were the two taken within an hour apart (i.e. the two with the near-identical tree shading). I'd say you can call that government control, not free press. And it's media-winked government control too. Below is the same hole from the same direction of the one taken along the ground, but a little further back and at an earlier time of the day (while the smoke was more pronounced). The depression was not formed on that day but was there already, as the green grass indicates. That is, some of the green grass is already sloping into the wing hole. It looks like the ground was simply scratched a little to make it look freshly disturbed. The reason for the shortness of the wing slice may have been due to the excavator' shovel incapable of reaching further with the machine positioned in the central hole. Plus, the central hole was required larger in order to have the excavator reach further out for the wing job. They could have used a larger excavator, but the perpetrators thought a shabby job would do the trick. Besides, the machine used may have been the largest one that the scrap yard had. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing2.jpg In the aerial view, one can see that the hole starts smack at the side of a road so that any clean up of the excavator's tracks would have been fast and easy. Ask whether it was a coincidence that the plane would come down with one wing tip smack on the shoulder of a road. But there is another problem; they didn't make the hole wide enough, thinking that no one would bother to measure it. The image below is one from someone who did bother. They have the plane in the hole along with trucks on the side of the street, showing that the wing span of Flight 93 should have crossed completely across the road: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93ToScale.jpg If the plane in the image above is correctly to scale (anyone can easily verify whether it's correct or not), then the wings of the aircraft would have bounced off the road, made a mark/gash in the road, and wing parts should be nearby and scattered along the road, but none of this is the reality at this site. Take the image above showing the crater around the green grass, and find how many body lengths there are from crater-edge to crater edge. I count about seven. Enlarge the image below and do the same measurement to find that the hole is now only about three or four human-body lengths across. Which images can we trust? It doesn't matter, because the very fact that tampering has been provided to the public from news people proves that we are not being treated with honesty. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Hole.jpg In a court of law, the word of a policeman against a defendant is taken as evidence. It doesn't matter whether the policeman is lying; it's taken as evidence until someone can prove that a lie was told. In the same way, the word of the FBI at the crash site is taken as legal evidence. If the FBI says that it dug up plane parts at the crash site, it's taken as evidence. It can be used against anyone claiming that no plane crashed there. It doesn't matter that the FBI had total control of the site, the fact that many FBI people agree with the same storyline is the evidence that a judge must abide by. But the pieces of plane that were dug out have a voice too, and they will tell the truth, which is why the FBI would never want to go to court on this matter. The pieces of the plane that were dug out were not from Flight 93, and the FBI likely did not allow any independent person to inspect these pieces. They likely did a shabby job by providing wrong pieces, because the entire affair was a major headache for them. It is actually tough to be a law-enforcement agency while breaking the law as they did. It corrupted them. In a court case, the defendant would have the right to prove that the FBI was lying by seeking to convince the judge that no plane landed there. An engineer could easily calculate how deep the aluminum housing (fuselage) of a passenger jet, coming in at a nose dive upon any type of soil system, would penetrate into the ground before finding complete resistance. Although a fuselage looks like a bullet, once its nose cone is compromised, it's nothing but an aluminum shell attached to a couple of floors. The point will be reached when the fuselage breaks away from the floors. Nothing in a plane is made heavier than needed to safely resist potential flight and landing stresses. The fuselage will not be attached to the floors with more metal than needed to fly safe. But, in any case, the aluminum is thin gauge, and will rip away easily from whatever holds it to the floor-joist system. Once the aluminum is ripped away from the heavier items to which its attached, it loses the plane's full momentum, and penetrates the ground as best it can on its own momentum. The aluminum will crumple while it penetrates, but will reach the point where, instead of piercing the ground, the fuselage will solely crumple. However, during crumpling, it's expected to break up into many pieces. We all understand that, in a military-based hoax amounting to a headache of huge magnitude for the FBI, the less work they needed to do to clinch the hoax, the better. Trucking in 85 pieces of fuselage, many of which had to fit together at their tears, just to make the event look absolutely real, was out of the question. The masses had best start to be fooled a lot easier just to make the work of the FBI a lot easier. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Fuselage.jpg I've never heard of an airplane disappearing completely or even partially into the soil. With this "new reality," think of how much cheaper it will be for globalists. Just call up an excavator for two hours, turn the soil a little, and, voila, a plane-crash site. Why even bother with any small debris, for this new reality can sink 100 percent of the plane, like a marble dropped into water. Come to think of it, how do we know that the U.S. military has not, prior to 9-11, faked other crashes by claiming near-complete disintegration of the plane? Here's some news-media quotes borrowed from the killtown webpage below (has covered the Flight-93 crash extensively): "Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.' - Washington Post (05/12/02) "The plane, too, was decimated. The largest pieces were the size of suitcases, the smallest the size of dimes. "It just looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky," Miller said." - Houston Chronicle (09/08/02) ..."Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a 'briefcase.' 'If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash,' he continued. The debris is very, very small.'" "'The best I can describe it is if you've ever been to a commercial landfill. When it's covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal.' - Pittsburgh Live (09/14/01)" "'If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap,' said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. 'There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces.' - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)" http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/debris.html#scrap_yard And that's why the large piece of fuselage wasn't likely there from day one. They had planned to do a shabby job with no one asking questions. They just wanted us to believe that the plane disintegrated. But they turned their headache into a death-wish. Poor slobs, FBI, poor slobs. The webpage continues: 'The mangled heap of iron and steel actually belongs to Rollock Inc., a scrap metal business owned and managed by the father-and-son team of Tony and Chris Kordell of Bedford County. The property they purchased three years ago abuts the crash site, which lies just several yards beyond the perimeter of the Kordells' land.' - pittsburghlive.com (09/11/02) (*Remember that the only reported witness to actually see Flight 93 reportedly crash was Lee Purbaugh, who was ex-Navy and only on his 2nd day of work at Rollock.) It sounds like he was "hired" just to act as a witness, which is how we can know all-the-more that Rollock was involved with this crime. There is no other explanation. The crime could not have taken place had not Rollock employees been a part of it. They were supposed to make the FBI's job easy. Instead, by their shabby job, they announced to the world that this was a hoax. If anyone's listening, that is. The tampered image has the wing span nearly as large as that of Flight 93, meaning that the image had the gouge 125-150 feet long. But here's a news report that says otherwise: Reporter: How big would you say that hole was? Konicki: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20ft to 15ft long and probably 10ft wide [agrees with other witness above]. Reporter: What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash and... Konicki: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees..." - FOX (09/11/01)http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crater.html Broken trees? From what? They must have had a plan for the broken trees. The page above has the hole with two people beside it that allows one to measure the top of the hole to about 20 feet wide, expected because that's roughly the width of a fuselage. But one side of the hole looks smooth, not machined, as though it had been there from an earlier time. The image is in good resolution and shows the wing scar, ech-hem, the joke, up close. Apparently, judging by the report of killtown, no local person saw a pillar of smoke, nor a drenching of the soil with fuel, and no one said they smelled fuel. "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth,' Parsons reported. 'It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth.' - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)" Are we to be gullible enough to accept the storyline that the jet fuel went into the soil, fuel tanks and all? The alternative is to believe that the American government has conspiracy crews at all levels, and in all nooks, of American life. It was a little hard to come to terms with in the beginning, but I'm settled on it now. American history will never look the same again. Even if you believe the other explanations, you need to grapple with this fuel problem. It's important as to how you will view the state of the global government at this time. If this crash was impossible, so was all of 9-11 an inside job. The perpetrators can't have it every way. The faster it was moving, the greater the chances, above 99 percent, that the fuel would burst into flames on the ground. No one really knows how fast the plane was moving, since it wasn't there, or because no one had a devise to measure its speed even if they did see it. The report that it was moving 500 mph or more is based on the need to explain a buried airplane showing no plane parts. Some news reports tell of the soft soil in that area, and some claim that the land was recently backfilled. However, the softer the dirt, the deeper the crater. The crater was not deep at all when compared to craters of other crashes, and yet their argument is that the soil was softer than most soils. That doesn't work. I've just read the example of a dart shot into flour where, instead of making a large hole, there is barely any evidence of the dart's entry point. But dirt isn't flour, and no one I've read has given a prior example for such a dart-scenario accomplished between a crashing plane and dirt. When war missiles (very much like darts) hit the ground and explode, they cause craters, not the dart-flour effect. And Flight 93 supposedly exploded, according to the authorities who provided a video of a black, smoky cloud rising from the "crash site." But that video serves only to prove the hoax because, instead of a constant pillar of smoke from long-burning jet fuel, there is a short cloud burst only, as though from an explosion(s) by some other means, without the ignition of jet fuel. Apparently, the eye-witness at the scrap yard reported no pillar of smoke, and no one at seeing the site caught any such thing on video or camera. The best we saw in the provided images: no more smoke than would be caused by the burning of a bushel of wet weeds. "When asked by a reporter: 'Any large pieces of debris at all?... Smoke? Fire?' 'Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke. No fire.'" It sounds like the smoke was very temporary, and for all we know, the smoke we see in the images was pasted to the scene. Why is there only one image of the plume of smoke at the initial explosion? Wouldn't the person who caught it on camera take more pictures to show the forthcoming pillar of smoke from the burning fuel? Yes, she would have, but no, she couldn't, because that would give away the hoax when no such pillar developed. Instead: "A large rising mushroom cloud was photographed within seconds after impact by Val McClatchey, who was nearly shaken off her couch by the crash [= insider giving false testimony], causing her to run out with her new digital camera and without aiming, snapped the only known photograph of the explosion before dropping her camera." Ah, I see. Who can prove otherwise? The people who failed to see the column of smoke. For, if an explosion took place at the crash, there is no way to avoid igniting the fuel that would have splashed out when the tanks broke up upon impact. Who are you going to believe, McClatchey, or your good senses? Don't you know that a plane moving over 500 mph cannot avoid broken gas tanks? Do you think that the tanks went into the "spongy" soil unbroken? What spongy soil. That occurs only in forests, and then such peat is very shallow, anyway, in inches, not dozens of feet. But some use the example of water, far more easily to push aside than spongy soil: "Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if 'the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon'." Soil is not water, but, yes, we get the message. But do you really think that the soil you see in the images, filled with stones and rocks, could act like water around a spoon? Hello? "A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane 'went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.'" Obviously, the person who excavated the place at the request of the FBI was an insider. Obviously. He had been prepared in advance, and he didn't speak his own words, but the authorities put the words into his mouth that he should speak. And so the storyline has been that the soil, once forced away from the plane's sides due to the massive force of entry, instead of splashing outward all around, came back toward the plane so fast, like water around a spoon, that the fuel didn't have a chance to explode due to lack of oxygen. But what caused the McClatchey cloud of smoke, then? http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html A spoon dropped gently into coffee doesn't have a tank of jet fuel to blow the water away in all directions. A spoon or dart doesn't break into small pieces like the skin of an aircraft. A proper comparison cannot use something stronger than a plane, such as a dart or spoon, and something less resistant than the soil, such as flour of water. To make the comparison properly, one needs to fire a tube into flour the thickness of tin foil. You now have a hard time imagining such a tube penetrating more than a miniscule amount before crumpling. The aircraft tube has no sharp point, or hard, solid nose, as does a dart, for moving aside the "flour." You are being deceived when they cause you to view the passenger jet like a spoon or dart. And the rocky soil at the crash site was not dry flour. In fact, they forgot to mention the many rocks that you see in the dirt that are a fundamental part of the "flour." Soil has some organic cementing agents mixed with humidity that packs extraordinarily strong. The more you compress soil, the harder it tends to resist penetration. You shouldn't imagine an indestructible nose cone as it paves the way through this rocky soil for the rest of the tube. Nor should we ignore the hard objects and materials with flat faces within the plane, not predicted to penetrate rocky soil like a dart through dry flour. Try shooting a dart into humid flour to see whether such substance will flow back around the penetrated dart. The humidity makes the flour stick to itself, which is definitely the case for soil, so that it won't tend to flow back to close the entry hole. The illusion of dirt flowing back upon itself is facilitated by the images of the soil that we see, where the soil was freshly overturned with an excavator. It gives the impression that the dirt could roll back to close the hole, but in fact, a plane ramming into that soil would compact it all around, and in the meantime would splash much of it some distance away, depending on how wet (i.e. soft and sticky) it was. We saw no dirt or rocks splashed away because the perpetrators were lazy, thinking that no one would ask questions. But rocks are not sticky no matter how wet, and they are crusty so that anything striking them will send them flying. We saw not even one rock on the grass outside the hole. We can't ignore the velocity of the plane. One could appeal to the plane's high velocity in acting like a bullet cleanly penetrating dirt, but there is no precedent for a plane entering dirt like a bullet through soft butter. That's because the skin of a plane is not like a solid bullet. As per the two planes that reportedly entered the twin towers, the perpetrators wanted you to view them like a bullet through butter rather than a thin tube penetrating thick, steel columns. How thick is the aluminum housing of a large passenger plane? I don't know. I can't find the answer online in the way I can't find many things about aircraft that can be used against the 9-11 hoax. But regardless of the gauge, the aluminum would be blown apart by the fuel. here's a powerful argument to add: "Subsequent studies by the EPA of the crash site have confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been pervasive had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there." In this case, the authorities could not persuade the EPA to provide a false / distorted / slanted statement on their behalf. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It is amazing how many pieces of plane parts turned up in the forest across the street from the hole while no such parts are visible around the hole. Why should that be? Well, for one thing, any outsider might have driven by the road BEFORE the crash was slated to begin, and seeing plane parts around the hole, it would have spoiled the operation. Instead, they littered the hole area with small items not visible, or not interesting, from the road. That makes too much sense not to be the truth. And here's an insider who mentions the pieces of fuselage in the forest: Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said [neither can I]. "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker. The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said. A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods. http://www.unitedflight93.com/ A plane 40 feet above your head is an awesome thing along with the ground-shaking landing just 900 feet away (they may have exaggerated that distance) = one second away. What caused the "mushroom of flame"? Did only a small amount of jet fuel escape the tanks? How could a small amount of jet fuel, escaped from the tanks, explode rather than just becoming a flame on the ground? Or did someone plant an explosive device? How could jet fuel reach across the road to the forest -- sideways from the plane's path -- but not forward to the open field ahead of the plane? Or, why did most-everything happen in the forest? The following can help explain which scenario is the correct one: "Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. 'The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees." Oh, I see, clothes hanging in the forest, but no clothes in the open field, or on the shoulder, or on the street, only where they could be hidden from drivers-by. "Rick King, 42, of Shanksville, was behind the wheel of the first fire truck to arrive at the crash scene...heard Flight 93 scream overhead, seen a massive fireball light up the sky and felt an explosion rock the entire town of Shanksville...But besides a burning landing-gear tire, smoldering branches in the nearby WOODS [caps mine] and a few brush fires, there was little to indicate a jetliner had just crashed, he says." Let's tackle some other nearby residents, workers and eye-witnesses, trying to determine which of them were the deliberate liars, and to check for inconsistencies. It seems to be an overwhelming fact that there was an explosion with fire and smoke. Granted. Ten miles away, at a warehouse near Berlin, employee Don Miller and co-workers felt their building shake [how low is a plane when the building shakes?]. "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane. "Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that." This is a tough one. The reason for such a claim can be to "prove" to the masses that this was no ordinary flight, i.e. could be none other than Flight 93 in terrible trouble. The only way that it could have been flying upside down is where it was a military craft like you'd see at an air show. But no one in this list of witnesses has reported what looked like a military craft. It's important to note how low the plane was while ten miles away. In my opinion, however, the perpetrators would not have been flying that low where the goal was to fly low only over Shanksville, to do a fly-over. Still, we can use Mr. Miller's testimony against others, for example, Terry Butler (from Stoystown Auto Wreckers at the time) who claims the plane "dropped out of the clouds" before turning over a ridge of trees and crashing a second afterward. He didn't see the crash; he only heard the "crash," which was merely an explosive device. If he's a true and sincere witness, then he seems to contradict the story of Don Miller. That is, it seems more credible that the plane would drop from the clouds only when approaching Shanksville. Does a plane come out of the clouds upside down? Mr. Butler claims to have seen the entire flight from out of the clouds, except for one second after it went over the ridge. But he said nothing of a plane flying upside down "for a few seconds [to be followed by] a nose dive". Instead, he said that it banked to the right. If it had flipped upside down, he would have said so. It is a little suspicious, however, that Butler used the "flip" word: "...it just went flip to the right and then straight down." "Flip to the right" is not usually taken to mean "flipped upside-down," but is a figure of speech to indicate unexpectedness and/or deliberation in making a right turn. Still, one wonders whether he was part of the insiders who were being told the flip word a lot. The fact that Butler has the plane turning sharp and down into a nose dive likewise makes me suspicious. He was about three miles from the crash site. Did he really see it all that way? I do believe that a plane went through that area, otherwise there would have been an abundance of locals claiming to hear nothing. But I don't think they would ask the pilot to do a quasi-nose dive with a passenger jet to feign a crash-about-to-happen. The option wherein they used a military jet, one that looked as much as possible like a passenger jet, is not out of the question. If they had it flying low and near the speed of sound, no one might get a close enough look to make out the type of craft. At the map below (you might need to zoom in), the crash site is at the Memorial. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stoystown+Auto+Wreckers/@40.096441,-78.93995,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x80d7209855b10003 The map should be showing the location of Stoystown Auto Wreckers. Note the flight path from the wreckers to the memorial, in a south-eastward direction. The viewer, Mr. Butler, for example, was looking at he tail end of the plane moving away from him, and the crash was three miles off. Is it really true that he could see the plane do a nose dive from that distance? Only if it was relatively high in the sky, but not if it was hugging the tree lines. That may explain why this particular witness choose to have the plane drop from the clouds, because no one in his area would believe him if his testimony agreed with others, where the plane was so low it shook buildings. Back to the scrap-yard worker (at Rollock), who was interviewed some minutes after his first testimony (mentioned above), when he said: "Purbaugh describes the crash as "just like a big mushroom cloud." He says when it hit, it 'shook the ground, rolled over in some way and then collapsed'..." It hit the ground and then rolled over in some way??? That's got to be a mistake. But he's the only person who saw the plane hit the ground, and in this case, it says he was only 200 yards away, not 300. I mean, this testimony is the best anyone has of what happened at ground zero, and he says the plane rolled over AFTER it hit. How can that be reconciled with a smooth dart penetrating flour and becoming covered over again??? I'm sure that I can explain the contradiction correctly: this false witness never saw any plane hit, and he was supposed to say something like it had rolled over on its back before striking the ground, but screwed up and put the roll-over AFTER the landing. Here's another entry: "Minutes later, the plane crashed in rural Somerset County, about 20 miles away. 'It was like an atomic bomb hit," said John Walsh, 72,..." An "atom bomb" from 20 miles away is an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? I don't think he heard a thing, especially as the fuel tanks didn't explode while the dart just entered smooth into the soft, buttery, newly-backfilled, spongy dirt that had the nature of coffee enveloping a spoon. Here's another account of Miller's testimony: Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground...As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene [who would have been so busy elsewhere at the time that they needed to drive away from this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle?]... Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires [nothing blazing extraordinarily, apparently]. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers [clearly, nothing blazing extraordinarily] they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department. ...What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later. Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we'll save that for later. ...Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next. The webpage above shares the story of the sighting of a small white plane at the "crash site" seconds before the explosion went off. I suppose it's possible that his plane detonated an explosive device. Here's a testimony to be trusted because it shares what the perpetrators would not have coached their false witnesses to say: "Laura Temyer of Hooversville...'I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.'" There were others who reported the engines going quiet briefly before the explosion, and so I think we can chalk up that item on the side of the real facts. In another testimony of Laura's, her thumps were called "booms." Here now is a thud sound: Viola Saylor of Lambertsville was outside talking to her sister. "We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud." Once again we see, the engines went quiet. One scrap-yard worker said he heard the plane coming in for 10-15 seconds, which amounts to four or more miles away, but here in Viola's testimony, the sound didn't start until the plane was overhead. This may indicate a soft glide down from cloud levels, with some engine roar for the fly-over across ground zero so that a soft glide afterward will get the plane further away. It's obvious that the plane had to go quiet, by design, for the explosion. It is of obvious importance that the plane should not be heard by anyone after the explosion(s). But once far enough from ground zero, it would have accelerated (quietly) and slipped away through a pre-determined path (with sparsest population?). The webpage from which the eyewitness reports were taken has this remark: Some of the conspiracy believers claim there was no crash in the field and that the impact crater was faked. Yes, really! Well then, if there was not a plane crash, and no deaths, which means no plane was shot down, which means . . . it was all a fake? If this were true, people are being paid to pretend they lost relatives on the flight! HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE GETTING??http://www.unitedflight93.com/ I don't know. You'd have to ask the people getting paid. The writer then goes on to say: "The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces." We can forgive him/her because it wasn't generally known at first that there was no fuel explosion. Nor was there any unburned fuel found on-site, though tests were conducted to find fuel contamination. We can also forgive him/her because it is hard to come to terms with a conspiracy of this magnitude. But if, after the obvious has been explained, he/she doesn't listen, then he/she is in danger of becoming a wicked-government tool. It can't have a good ending for anyone. This writer is trying their best but is really coming up shy of reality because he/she is convinced the plane landed there. "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air." The writer is trying to explain how some parts got into the forest or the pond, or eight miles away, but fails to see what's before the eyes in the close-up pictures, where small fragments litter the over-turned dirt but do not appear on the adjacent, undisturbed soil. It seems that their inability to believe in a faked crash makes them draw back from focusing hard enough on the undisturbed soil to see what it's saying to them. A fuel-tank explosion requires a sweeping plot of devastation the likes of which is missing in the photos presented to us. It's actually quite incredible how easily we humans can be deceived. It could have been me; it could have been you. Virtually every truther was deceived, at first. That's because we trusted. We were guilty of nothing but trusting our fellow man. "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away." I've just got to shake my head. How does the writer envision such a magnificent force while failing to see the undisturbed soil just six inches past the crater? One can even argue that small rocks still on the GRASS should not be there after a massive explosion. I make my share of stupid mistakes when not fully attentive to things, but in this case, if one wants to speak on a massive explosion, there is no way to be inattentive to that grass growing as far as into the wing scar, because the fuel tanks were in the wings. Just look at this tall grass: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg They have the center of the hole charred, but the fuel tanks were in the wings, yet the part where the wing scar is claimed to be has tall grass. There's very sloppy work. Plus, how could an explosion send all of those metal fragments onto the over-turned soil, but send none on the undisturbed soil? Did the explosion have eyes? Shouldn't we see fragments on the green grass too? Clearly, there was no explosion at the crash site. It's not necessary that the perpetrators caused their explosion(s) on top of "crash site," or, if they did, the explosion was directed upwards alone for maximum effect in the sky i.e. for maximum visibility from people far off. I have yet to read anyone that says the fire was prolonged. No one snapped a picture of fire. The writer needs to remove his explosion argument lest people take him for a ninny. Or put it this way, that if I have a small camp fire on the grass, whether it's wet or not, the fire starts to creep through the grass as it dries, and one needs to be attentive to keep the fire from spreading. Moreover, some grass near the fire wilts noticeably, but we see no fire-creep in the grass, nor wilting, at a location that supposedly had tanks of jet fuel burning high into the sky for a considerable time. It is clear that the FBI did not allow people to take images of the location, or we would have a lot more to judge by. Perhaps even the four or five pictures that are available were taken by outsiders that were not supposed to get out. That is, the insider plot may have been to keep the public from seeing the green grass, for it makes no sense that they would permit the grass to remain. We can be sure that they are seeking an Internet law or rule that forbids the common people from copying images from news sights. I have seen that already. The question on how the explosion was performed is a good one. Perhaps it launched from the forest, explaining the forest on fire, and some tree damage. The small white plane may have caused it. On the plane debris and body parts scattered about, it's plain that it was planted, or one would see some of it around the crater. Some debris miles away turned up at the same general spot, as though the explosion was playing golf, seeking to drive it to one spot alone. There are various theories on that part of this story, and we should not ridicule those who try to explain it. The ridicule belongs to the ones who put this part of the plot together. They had paper eight miles from the crash site, which looks like an attempt to feign a mid-air explosion...from the bomb that the terrorists supposedly had. It can be seen in various plane crashes that all fuel cannot be instantly consumed during the explosion. The explosion spreads the fuel out so that it burns slowly wherever it lands. There is not sufficient oxygen to consume the entire tanks of gas all at once in a small volume of space. Therefore, as the fire in Pennsylvania did not burn for hours, there was no jet-fuel explosion. The writer is in danger of altering his/her sense of physics reality. From now on, writers such as this are in danger of completely misinterpreting the physics of a plane crash, just as the perpetrators would have them. With educators submitting to the likes of these perpetrators, reality will be distorted in a number of areas. The writer continues: "The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away." That depends on whether the witness(es) can be trusted who say they felt it ten miles away. To shun the possibility of false witnesses is unwise. The plot could not have worked so well without them. The writer himself/herself is a victim of the false witnesses. On the page below, the story on Flight 1771 (1987) sounds a lot doubtful. The plane was reported at extremely high speed (approximately 700 mph), extremely steep angle of descent, with all plane parts on the obliterated side, but with a crash hole only two feet deep and four feet long. ??? The crash came with a suicide message, recovered miraculously, and the police even found the gun of the man who supposedly brought the plane down. It doesn't sound logical for such a plane to cause a hole that shallow in a grassy hill. No engines or heavy beams are visible in the two pictures of the crash site. At one time, no one would have asked any questions, but now is no longer "at one time." "Unburnt paper was flying everywhere [easy to spread around by hand] as small aircraft fuel fires [easy to set up] burned on the ground [why not a pillar of smoke?]. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 [of 43] of the passengers were never identified [or they didn't exist in the first place]. All aboard, including Burke and Thomson, were killed." Providing most of those things was do-able, but providing a large hole with a machine may not have been. Two feet deep and four feet long is do-able quietly by shovel. http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html Faking plane crashes for various reasons may have a history in the several of decades. If the public would buy a two-foot deep hole from a passenger liner moving 700 mph at a 70-degree angle, it was butter in their fingers. One possibility: Flight 1771 was stolen (i.e. never crashed), the airliner collected the insurance by pre-design, and the passenger list was fabricated. At the page above, go down to the box having the plane, Canberra Mk.2 WD991, because it had a crashing speed comparable to the speed claimed for Flight 93, and a nose-dive angle of 80 degrees (we are lost for words). The debris field (image below) shows a large burn mark in the field, as expected of a real crash, and there is plane-piece debris scattered for many planes lengths from the crash spot, as expected, neither of which was the case for Flight 93. The visible pieces are all white, suggesting fuselage pieces, and although they look small, the distance of the camera suggests that these pieces can be as large as four feet long. The high number of them over a wide area is what a person expects, who has a grasp of reality not shifted by the 9-11 goons. The scattered debris is what a normal person expects from a "disintegrating" plane on contact with the ground, because we have never heard before of any plane disintegrating fully into pieces the size of nuts and bolts, or vaporizing altogether apart from hot fire. These concepts are becoming the new reality if the goons can get away with it. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Canberra.gif The fact that 9-11 catapulted the American military into the Middle East describes the nature of the humanity involved in the Middle East. You can't have much confidence in that nature when you see 9-11 as a colossal falsification fed to the American people themselves, while falsely accusing an Arab peoples who were not involved. This has the stink of Nazi's who kill masses brutally and sleep well. This plays very well to the topics of End Times and Lake-of-Fire punishment. It seems that the masses who support these Middle-East intruders will be lumped into those deserving the Lake of Fire. If at first Christians were deceived by the Bush invasion of Iraq, there has been ample time, and ample opportunities, to get it right. If you know that all the nations will be gathered to the Middle East for the punishment of Armageddon, how could you, as FOX news does, or even as World Net Daily does, support the American intrusions into the Middle East. Is that wise, do you think? Whatever goodness American may have guided herself with in decades gone by, it's gone today. In case the sorry job at the "crash" site" convinced some people that no plane came down, the perpetrators had some powerful jabs to their credibility prepared with eye-witnesses who spotted the plane coming down. Some of them heard the plane coming across their houses at low altitude, and as this reported plane took a path close to a street with many houses, one is forced to agree that a plane did fly that way. But was it Flight 93, that is the question? The hole at the scrap yard won't help with the answer. Some of the witnesses are expected to have been insiders who didn't technically lie when saying that they heard / saw a plane. On searching the story of Flight 93, you will come across reports of airplane fragments some six miles or more from the scrap yard, as well as body parts, but why assume it was Flight 93 that flew that way? At the page below, you can read that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport (Ohio) early in the hoax. There was too much information reported about this incident to call it a mistake. The story was retracted for unknown reasons. In this report, there are terrorists aboard Flight 93, and the cockpit mic is left on unwittingly or, to put it another way, by design of the perpetrators, it was necessary that the public hear this fabricated conversation conducted by the faked terrorists on board. They said they had a bomb and were going to land the plane at the airport because they had secured all their demands from the United States. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday [that day, 9-11] at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93." http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/theories.html One possible motive for this part of the plot is that some leading perpetrators felt that site at Pennsylvania was too shabby to go ahead with the plan. So, instead, they were going to land the plane and make a different scenario out of it. Others wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania plot. The sky is the limit here as to the possible theories, but very apparently, the plane landed, and passengers were evacuated; I can't see how the mayor could have had that wrong. Someone contacted him to say that the plane had been evacuated, or was in the process of being evacuated. I don't think we can argue that he made that story up; he must have received it in a phone call / email. Have we got that right? And this helps to explain why no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and why the Cleveland story was retracted after the Pennsylvania crash made the news. Flight 93 wasn't scheduled for Cleveland, and so when United Airlines identified the hi-jacked plane as Flight 93, by what chance could they have had that wrong? The Pennsylvania story had not yet broken on the news i.e. United Airlines did not (was not supposed to) know that Flight 93 would be reported hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania, meaning that when United had Flight 93 at Cleveland, there could be no mistake about it being Flight 93. Their computerized communication systems indicated Flight 93. They didn't dream up the number "93," nor should we argue that they meant some other number but blurted "93" by mistake. Nor should we assume that they communicated some other number but that someone at the other end heard / read it wrongly as 93. These things would be possible if the number had not been reported as 93, but the fact that Flight 93 would be involved, that morning, in a terrorist-heist scenario in Pennsylvania, convinces me that United had correctly conveyed the landing of Flight 93. In another news report concerning the landing: "The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside." That latter claim could indicate the story as desired / reported by those particular perpetrators who wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania hoax. They needed a plane filled with passengers, and perhaps the plot was going to have the hijackers lifting off from Cleveland with passengers in the plane. Instead, they opted to retract the story, deny the landing, and reported the plane doing a U-turn, with hijackers steering it, while in the air near Cleveland. "The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15." How does anyone make such a thing up by mistake, then report it to the mayor? If the mayor was one of the insiders, then he was of the camp that wanted 93 to land. Apparently, the story was going to be that the authorities had successful negotiations with the terrorists. Later in the day, an FBI spokesman entered the news to say that Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland, not 93. But it was the FBI who took control in Pennsylvania, and so how far can we trust this new number? Zero. The FBI quickly took over the story that the media was not to tell, and the FBI lied to the public for the sake of saving the scrap-yard hoax. After half of America was grappling for some time with the wave of "truthers," which has become a sort of dirty word to many, and as the pesky truthers put heads together and got down to some serious business, this came out: "Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly 'crashed' in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville."http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/ It looks like the plane landed, released the passengers (into confinement?), then took off again for some unknown destination. This plane was seen again in active service (business as usual). Before much longer, the truthers knew they had said too much, that they had the perpetrators at their mercy, and that the time would fast approach for a killing fest if they continued to point fingers. It's predictable that many active truthers and potential-active truthers went quiet(er) once the cat was fully out of the bag. But the perpetrators' worst enemies are those who feign being on the government side. These were created by the perpetrators, by fear, but this very thing has made them the silent enemy that, at any moment, can quietly do damage. Lots of it. Amongst these hushed people are media barons, leading journalists, mayors, judges, police chiefs, you name it, all out there wanting revenge and new/different government leaders. The pendulum must swing the other way, and everyone will reap what they sow. From Griffin's analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes. More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006: (1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville "crash", Todd Beamer's last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer's call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government's own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND! (2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls. (3) Lisa Jefferson [Verizon operator], who reportedly took Beamer's call, failed to mention the phrase "Let's roll" in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer's voice. (4) In fact, the FBI [at court] delayed bringing out the story of "Let's Roll" and the passengers "fighting back" and apparently only did so to stop the story of a [military] flight shoot-down from gaining momentum. (5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air. (article above). The things that should be coming to your mind are the many ways for the government to give false impressions to the public, and that these tactics were not new on 9-11, but well-practiced for decades prior. If nothing more, it has become far more costly for the authorities to conduct hoax's because lazy / sloppy schemes can no longer find success. The Boston Marathon, very sloppy, only added more heads to the truther camps. I probably wouldn't have covered these hoax's except that they have the propensity to play to prophetic themes. A new description of the American and British governments has become necessary while we look forward to fulfilled prophecy. The small taste of "martial law" in Boston, set up merely to find one young, framed man, is indicative of things to come. It wasn't by chance. It was a trial balloon. It showed that the police are the enemy of the public, which is the definition of a police state. A police state is not one that has a police force, but one where the police are in conflict with the people. It can be caused by unruly people, or by corrupt government. Boston's trial balloon was not from the unruly people, leaving only one option: a corrupt Obama. The article above has made a couple of good points concerning the cell-phone calls supposedly from 9-11. Obviously, these calls have one purpose, to fashion in your mind the things that the perpetrators wanted us to believe was the reality. But what's wrong with this particular conversation: Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb." How many times do you tell your mom your last name just in case she doesn't know who you are by your first name alone? I'd laugh except that I'd rather celebrate the jailing of the perpetrators. The Jailor is Coming. The Big Jail has been Prepared. If the perpetrators are not afraid of man due to their overwhelming powers, they should be afraid of Jesus. My position on 9-11 was not rooted in a desire to smear the government or the FBI. I simply and genuinely came to see that no planes landed either at the Pentagon or the scrap-yard site. It is a natural extension of that belief to point fingers at the government and FBI, charging them with the faking of plane crashes. There is nothing more complicated, and certainly nothing diabolical, about that position. It is a logical position: if there were no planes, the government faked the crashes. It's not my horror story, but theirs. I'm just explaining it the best I can; they are the ones who need to answer to it. Instead, they mainly ignore the people who point fingers at them, thus securing their future enemy. They continue to be viewed, and charged, as diabolical operators. They have brought that upon themselves, and will need to deal with it.](http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg){kind=link}
