Claims about Flight 93 debris

[Buckaroo]

I made the mistake of listening to the Lionel Show on our local "progressive talk" station here in DC last night, and he made number of wild claims about flight 93. Some I've heard before, and are easily countered, but a few are new to me. In particular, he made the claim that debris from flight 93 was found 8 miles away, showing that the plane must have broken up in mid-air, an idea that he then ridiculed.

I can't quite work out his angle, though. On the one hand it seems like he's saying that the plane was shot down, but then he asks leading questions like "where's the plane?" referring to the apparent lack of debris at the crash, making it seem as though 93 never actually crashed.

My question, then, is this: is the claim true? If so, how do we think it occurred? If not, where did the claim originate?

Even aside from his troother tendancies, he's one obnoxious SOB, ain't 'e?

 

[jhunter1163]

I've heard this claim before too. IIRC, paper debris was found as far away as 1.5 miles. The largest significant piece of metallic debris was an engine fan which was found about 300 yards away (downhill) from the crash site.

You could contrast this with what happened at Lockerbie, where the plane actually did blow up in mid-air. The debris field was measured in the thousands of square kilometers.

ETA: If he's claiming there was a plane switch, he may be referring to the (brief) confusion between UA93 and Delta 1989. I can't really figure out what he's claiming, either.

 

[Gravy]

There was light paper and cloth debris that made it at least 6 miles away, carried by the wind. No plane parts though. The flight data recorder indicated that all major systems were functioning normally when the plane hit the ground, and witnesses say it was intact as it headed down.

 

[Buckaroo]

That's all about what I figured.

I should clarify from my OP: He was not ridiculing the notion that the debris ended up 8 miles away, a "fact" he proclaimed as if it was gospel. He was ridiculing the idea that the plane broke up in midair by itself. He thereby implied that it had help from a missile or such.

 

[chippy]

They found no debris behind the crash site. All that was found was in front of where the plane was heading, which is consistent with its 40 degree slope when it rammed into the ground.

If it were hit by a missile, the debris would have been more widespread.

 

[gumboot]

As others have said, everything is consistant with an intact aircraft crash. Aircraft that break up in mid air routinely scatter debris over enormous areas. To the untrained eye "8 miles" seems like a long way, but really it's not. That's less than a minute of travel time for something travelling at 500 MPH. It's also worth noting that "debris" includes anything. Aircraft might be made of metal, but their contents includes things like magazines, paper, and clothing - all very light and easily carried by the wind after being thrown into the air by an explosion.

-Gumboot

 

[uk_dave]

If the shanksville crash site was faked it would have been faked to fool the simple folks of the 'truth' movement, therefore there would have been:

Easily indentifiable large pieces of wreckage concentrated in a small area with a clearly defined 'cut out' in the ground perfectly matching the profile of the plane.

Since there wasn't, it follows that the scene was not faked.

A new rule of CT emerges:

Anything which looks exactly how the 'truther' imagines it should look is most likely faked, and anything which is contrary to how the 'truther' expects it to look is real.

 

[einsteen]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself alive

 

[apathoid]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself alive

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but in this case - words fail me...

 

[einsteen]

The only theory that I personally have is that I have no theory about that plane.

 

[Gravy]

The last theory I've heard was someone saying it buried itself alive

If you're interested, why haven't you looked the evidence, rather than mentioning foolish opinions that you heard? And where do you think the wreckage, human remains, and personal effects came from?

​

The only theory that I personally have is that I have no theory about that plane.

Why do you choose not to believe all the evidence?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#flight-93-didnt-crash (search for the phrase "the physical evidence")
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/93index9.asp

 

[A W Smith]

Cloth? paper?

anyone here as a kid ever take apart a birds nest?

 

[boloboffin]

This goes here.

Spooked911 (who is Ace Baker, right?), he of the first two bunny cage experiments, has come up with a doozy over at DU. The engine buried under the ground he faults for two reasons.

One: it's only a foot or so under the earth. This doesn't account for any distance traveled under the soil during the impact.

Two: get this - the engine is sitting at the wrong angle to be from 93.

the engine should be tilted 45 degrees to the north but its tilted to the south

Yes, I have already explained that large pieces of engine that tear off of a plane that impacts the ground at high speeds are apt to land at almost any angle whatsoever. Perhaps I'm using too many prepositional phrases - it's a weakness of mine.

 

[Gravy]

This goes here.

Spooked911 (who is Ace Baker, right?), he of the first two bunny cage experiments, has come up with a doozy over at DU. The engine buried under the ground he faults for two reasons.

One: it's only a foot or so under the earth. This doesn't account for any distance traveled under the soil during the impact.

Two: get this - the engine is sitting at the wrong angle to be from 93.



Yes, I have already explained that large pieces of engine that tear off of a plane that impacts the ground at high speeds are apt to land at almost any angle whatsoever. Perhaps I'm using too many prepositional phrases - it's a weakness of mine.

Spooked isn't Ace Baker, but he might as well be. Why he would assume that the engine part that's being dragged out of the crater in the photo was found at that depth and position is beyond my ken. He is a special, special kind of idiot.

 

[Pardalis]

If you're interested, why haven't you looked the evidence, rather than mentioning foolish opinions that you heard? And where do you think the wreckage, human remains, and personal effects came from?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045bb784d734e9.jpg[/qimg]
​

Why do you choose not to believe all the evidence?

Just once I would like to see (or hear) a CTist say: "I stand corrected."

Just once.

 

[einsteen]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.

Did I see a passport ? That is the ultimate proof, was it Osama himself ?

 

[GlennB]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.

That it "buried itself alive" ??

What on earth is that phrase even supposed to mean?

 

[Pardalis]

Gravy, it was "one of you guys" who said that.

Did I see a passport ? That is the ultimate proof, was it Osama himself ?

Einsteen, could you answer Gravy's post? What about the wreckage and the human remains found at the crash site?

It's common courtesy to answer when someone asks you a question.

 

[TC329]

There was light paper and cloth debris that made it at least 6 miles away, carried by the wind. No plane parts though. The flight data recorder indicated that all major systems were functioning normally when the plane hit the ground, and witnesses say it was intact as it headed down.

Would you agree that the appearance of this crater indicates a 39degree angle at impact as stated by the fdr data or do you think it would be more consistent with a 90degree angle at impact?