Let's say I'm right, and no tail section was found in the hole at Shanksville.
They said a plane crashed there, right? So you'd expect to see something like the remnants of a plane crash when you got there.
Not really. (Just my opinion as a veteran Air Force fire fighter.)
Fine. Now, look at as many different plane crashes as you can find, especially ones that involved high speed. Discover how many of them include a tail section that survives an impact.
There was none at the crash site when the Value Jet crashed in the Everglades. (NOTHING was visible on the surface.) Somewhere around here, Beachnut posted a photo of an unidentified crash site where the aircraft was entirely buried in what may have been old land fill. The ground at Shanksville was relatively uncompacted fill, possibly tailings and glacial till. Paul Klipsch's thirty-feet long Spitfire was buried about three feet deep in very stiff, compact clay and compressed into a wad five feet high. Sand and fist-sized cobbles, for the most part. Much more yielding than European clay. There are photos of very small bits of aluminum all over the place, mostly from the rear of the aircraft, all down-range of the impact crater. Admittedly, an amateur might expect the tail to still be identifiable. They do tend to break off rather easily but they have been known to follow the rest of the aircraft into a crater. Sometimes, they bounce out. Some times they don't. Having not seen the individual pieces from Shanksville identified by location and presumed part of the aircraft, I would speculate that the tail eith followed the rest of the aircraft into the crater and was buried when the temporary channel into the ground collapsed or it was shattered on imppact with the ground, thus scattered about with the other small scrap.
Understand that in a normal crash, the vertical stabilizer remains vertical with the narrow end pointing at the sky for at least a little while after the empanage has separated from the fuselage so that it sustains fewer blows to damage it.
This was not the case at Shanksville. The shape of the crater and the way that the ground is pushed up on the down-range side show clearly that the plane was up-side-down on impact. There is also a clearly visible impact mark in all the aerial shots immediately after the crash. The vertical stabilizer clarly impacted with the ground, subjecting it to impact and shearing forces far beyond what a normal crash would involve, I dout that any large pieces were left when it stopped moving.
There is a far better crash site to which the crater of Flt 93 could be compared. The Caspian Air crash in July of 2009 reduced the aircraft to very small shards of metal, with a few of the control surfaces still identifiable.
The crater of Caspian Air did not look like that at Shanksville, but that does not prove that they should have looked the same. The ground into which the Caspian Air plane crashed was far firmer than that at Shanksville. There was about three or four feet of what appears to be brown loess soil over a darker layer of what appears to be mudstone. The impact blew a lot of the soil and the underlieing stone out of the crater, along with an assortment of scrap. The empanage, thus, was not subjected to the same impact as that on Flt 93, but it still sustained far more serious damage than is normal.
What is most important, for comparative purposes, is the depth of the crater. It is only slightly shallower than that at at Shanksville, but did not collapse back around the aircraft because the walls of the crater were far more stable. Had the ground there been as soft as that at Shanksville, it is unlikely that as much debris would have been found on the surface.
No laws of physics were broken at Shanksville, nor should it raise an eyebrow among those familiar with aircraft accidents that there was so little left on the surface.
You really need to stop what you are doing and run your evidence by a few more fire fighters and maybe a welder or two before you make an utter fool of yourself in public.
