In conclusion, given my experience with, and understanding of soil, through my work-related experiences, and my understanding of physics from previous study, the official story of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville could simply not be possible. When considering all aspects together the official story is utter nonsense. The questions which were raised throughout this report have been collated below:
Question 1: How can sand that is contains large, hardened pockets of sand, an almost entire covering of wild grass, which leaves clean, sharp edges when dug, and in which feet and vehicles do not sink even slightly, be so ‘loosely packed’ that an entire plane can sink into it, and be so ‘loosely packed’ that it slips back over the plane once buried, leaving it neatly covered?
Question 2: How does a plane travel 34 metres into the sand largely unimpeded, only to have the tail fin and last 13 metres of the cabin ‘disintegrate’ solely from the impact of the tail fin with the ground, particularly given that the official story claims the ground was ‘soft and loose’ enough to swallow the entire plane, and the tail fin is apparently very light, and not structurally rigid?
Question 3: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion, which left
large pieces of debris and ‘disintegrated’ over 200 passenger chairs and internal fittings so that no traces remain, how did the last section of the plane remain intact to leave an imprint with the tail fin?
Question 4: If the plane was decelerating rapidly due to impact and friction with the ground, is it reasonable to assume that by the time the tail fin reached the ground, there would still be sufficient momentum for the entire tail fin to ‘disintegrate’?
Question 5: How can it be argued that the ground was 'soft and loose enough that it swallowed an entire plane', but at the same time the ground was so hard that it 'disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces' (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes)?
Question 6: Is it realistic to expect that a tail fin impact on a bomb-resistant concrete building would result in much greater damage than a tail fin impact with ‘soft, loose sand’?
Question 7: Is it realistic to expect that exploding jet fuel as it impacts ‘soft, loose sand’ will react or explode differently to exploding jet fuel impacting with a bomb-resistant concrete building?
Question 8: If most of the blast impact at the Pentagon crash is dissipated throughout the mostly-empty office floors or outside of the building as shown in the surveillance camera footage, how did the blast manage to spread vertically through 5 steel-reinforced concrete floors?
Question 9: If this damage is caused by the blast, and not the tail fin, why is it only vertical damage, all the way to the roof, and not in a radial fashion?
Question 10: If at least a part of the Pentagon damage shown was caused by the tail fin of the supposed plane, how did behave so differently to the tail fin in the Shanksville crash (which apparently left only a minor impression on ‘soft, loose sand’), given both planes hit stationary objects and both planes experienced a jet fuel explosion?
Question 11: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion, which tore the plane apart, leaving thousands of pieces of debris, how did the plane bury itself entirely in sand, given that it was separated into much smaller individual pieces, each of which would not be carrying the same momentum as when traveling as one, connected mass (the plane)?
Question 12: If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story?
Question 13: If Val McClatchy took a photo indicating a large explosion from the plane’s impact, which could only realistically be from the plane’s fuel load, which left large pieces of debris, and given that the fuel of the plane is stored along the wings, how could grass and earth inside the supposed wing imprints be undisturbed and unburnt? Surely, the point of impact for the wings (the ‘wing imprints’) is the point at which the fuel in the wings would explode, as per Val McClatchy’s photo?
Question14: If exploding jet fuel covers a large area of the ground, how can the result of a similar explosion of jet fuel on the same day result in no burnt grass, right up to, and even inside the point of impact with the ground,?
Question 15: If the burning jet fuel was sprayed or thrown approximately 60 metres towards the wooded area, why does Val McClatchy’s photo show a cloud of smoke which indicates both a singular point of explosion, and one initial explosion with virtually no residual burning, as shown below?
Question 16: How can one plane lose or shatter its cockpit when hitting sand so ‘loosely packed’ that it swallowed the rest of the plane, whilst another on the same day crashes through 6 external bomb-resistant walls?
Question 17: As discussed above in the section on inertia, how were these other parts able to crash through 6 walls, given that the momentum and inertia they carried as individual, disconnected items is far less than when traveling as one connected, heavy mass?
Question 18: How does the burning jet fuel, which exploded on impact with the first exterior wall, travel through 5 more external walls, including passing through two more ‘rings’ of outdoor space, to continue burning at the final ‘exit hole’?
Question 19: How can 406 tons, or 282m³, of sand be displaced almost instantly, yet show absolutely no evidence of disturbance in the ground immediately around the alleged crash site?
Question 20: What type of ‘loosely packed’ sand provides absolutely no resistance to a 90 ton Boeing traveling at great speed, yet is firm enough for people to walk on without sinking up to their ankles, or for vehicles to drive on without becoming bogged?
Question 21: If a plane has lost its cockpit, and therefore its ‘wedge’ shaped profile, how did it bury itself in sand when there was a force acting to push the nose away from the ground at roughly 25º, which is magnified the faster the plane is traveling, and another force provided by gravity acting to twist the plane further onto its back?
Question 22: How, therefore, could this loose sand hold the nose of the plane firmly in the ground to prevent it tipping over, particularly given that the plane was only at 40º to the ground? Surely the nose would have just lifted through this incredibly ‘loosely packed’ sand?
