• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

1994 Hole in Shanksville, PA Theory.....

9/11 Chewy Defense

Banned
9
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
3,593
Some Truthers are trying to say that there was a hole right where Flight 93 crashed back in 1994. They claim that the engine they found after Flight 93's crash was also planted in 1994 in that "hole". Take this YouTube Truther for example:

Kranski4 (6 hours ago)

yes fool. there was a hole in shanksville in 1994, at the location where UA93 supposedly went down on 9/11.

watch?v=xwj1KXyhv0A

That's why close-up photos of the "wing scars" shows dry grass growing right over where the wings filled with tons of fuel would have impacted.

Yes that's right ATR0, no fire from all that fuel. Another first time in history.

I realize duhbunkers love coincidences, so i understand if you want to tick it off as yet another one of those. Ostrich.
Click to expand...

Now here 2 videos that's been put up about that retarded theory:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUzrHHDu96U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwj1KXyhv0A

Are the Truthers so desprite about lying or am I not the only one that sees how retarded that theory completely sounds?
 
Last edited:
I'm shocked to hear that people are saying retarded things in YouTube comments.
 
Wait, I thought they were claiming there could be no fire from the fuel?
 
What I'd like to know is how truthers can at the same time think Rumsfeld was telling the truth when he said U93 was shot down in Shanksville while also faked the entire plane crash. Make up your minds!
 
So this was planned during Clinton's first term? Why did they decide to fake the plane in Shanksville at all? It amazes me why even some plane huggers will go "Tower one: plane, tower two: plane but the Pentagon and Shnksville?! You stupid sheeple!"

I would like to refer to my post in the "things that don't bother us about the TM" thread and say that debunking this smug prick is wasted over the internet. Doing it irl would make me feel like I planted 100 trees, painted 50 orphanages and helped 25 old ladies cross the street.
 
LOL! Well add all the people who lived in the area to the "9/11 In On It" list. They look nothing alike.
 
I had only a cursory glance at the video a few weeks ago, but the black and white one looks nothing like the hole the plane left behind. The hole the plane left behind probably doesn't even exist anymore.

I put this under the "I'm not even going to bother" category.
 
What, no mention of Val McClatchy's famous smoke plume photo?

We had a very long thread here a few years ago started by a boy called "Killtown". What a hoot!
 
9/11ChewbaccaDefense said:
The hole where Flight 93 crashed is a bit closer to the dirt road & almost to the tree line.

I had to modify your picture a bit:
Click to expand...

The yellow line in my graphic is lined up with the road into the woods in both photos, which I thought was sufficient to make the point. The two photos are not taken at the same declination, so you can't really get a perfect overlap by just rotating, but even after accounting for that, the yellow line from the road would point to the old ditch and completely miss the UA93 crater.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
The yellow line in my graphic is lined up with the road into the woods in both photos, which I thought was sufficient to make the point. The two photos are not taken at the same declination, so you can't really get a perfect overlap by just rotating, but even after accounting for that, the yellow line from the road would point to the old ditch and completely miss the UA93 crater.
Click to expand...

Right! So what they're really trying to point out in 1994 is just a ditch & nothing more than that.

Makes sense!
 
I just don't see anything in the 1994 photo that looks to be in the same position and at the same scale as the United 93 crater.
 
This nonsense theory is old.

craterdj1.jpg


crater2zt7.jpg
 
9/11ChewbaccaDefense said:
They claim that the engine they found after Flight 93's crash was also planted in 1994 in that "hole".
Click to expand...



Forget the obvious flaw with the hole locations, have they addressed what an engine would look like after about 7 years buried in the ground?
 
knife fight colobus said:
So this was planned during Clinton's first term? Why did they decide to fake the plane in Shanksville at all? It amazes me why even some plane huggers will go "Tower one: plane, tower two: plane but the Pentagon and Shnksville?! You stupid sheeple!"
Click to expand...

This got me thinking. Do you think towns bid for the faked plane crash like cities bid for the Olympics?
 
Flight93.jpg

Did the plant the fuel too?
flight93AirBusB52.jpg

Flight 93, Airbus, and a B-52 Jet-Fuel fireballs smoke. The fuel is in the wing so the impact with the greatest energy to disperse the fuel is Flight 93 at nearly 600 mph. Airbus impacted at takeoff speed, B-52 impacted at stall speed. Flight 93 impact 10 times the energy to disperse the jet fuel and make another large fireball as seen three other times on 911.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom