The Boeing 757 Challenge!



The Boeing 757 Challenge!

Let's review the official story of what happened after Flight 93 allegedly crashed.

The Boeing 757 supposedly flipped on its back and crashed into an empty field at a 40-deg angle.

Incredibly, hardly anything appeared to be left of the large plane.

People who reached the scene were stunned at what they saw, or better yet, what they didn't see.

"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane," Barron said. - Post-Gazette.com (09/12/01)

"If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known," Delano said. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

Some thought the plane must have bounced into the woods.

"Officials [said]... Most of the plane's debris kept traveling after the plane hit and landed in the woods past the mine." - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)

“It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

Capt. Monaco [said] "the plane initially struck and continued on into the south," disappearing into the woods. - Daily Athenaeum (09/12/01)

This was even depicted in a scene from a movie about the alleged crash of Flight 93.

But no plane was found in the woods, so people just assumed that Flight 93 had simply disintegrated from impacting at such a high speed.

"the plane is pretty much disintegrated. There’s nothing left but scorched trees," said Mark Stahl. - Daily American (09/12/01)

“It looked like it hit and disintegrated,” Delano said. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

“Once it hit, everything just disintegrated,” said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone. - PittsburghLive.com (09/12/01)

This explanation seemed to be what the news ran with ever since with some officials still perpetuating it.

"[Wally] Miller holds up the bag and says that virtually the entire airplane, including its 44 human occupants, disintegrated..." - Washington Post (05/12/02)

"the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated..." - The Age (09/09/02)

"the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the 500 mph impact..." - Standard-Times (09/11/02)

But this theory seemed problematic, because only two weeks after 9/11, officials had announced that an astonishing "95%" of Flight 93 had been recovered!

"The FBI announced... that 95 percent of the plane was recovered... and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline…" - CNN (09/24/01)

This claim just didn't seem to jive with the crime scene, since practically no plane looked to be left afterward.

But what most people might not know, is that the news started reporting another reason why so little of Flight 93 looked to be left -- a full year after the incident!

It turns out that since Flight 93 "happened" to crash into an old strip-mine that had been refilled with dirt, the ground was still "soft" and "spongy" at the time of impact and this enabled most of Flight 93's 155ft-long fuselage to tunnel and disappear into the ground.

"The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart... digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy from the old mine work." - Pittsburgh Live (09/11/02)

"The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in." - St. Petersburg Times (09/10/03)

(Following article not in video.)

"it took a while to identify the exact location of impact because there was no plane visible... "There is no plane there, believe me."
The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage." - St. Anthony Messenger Online (09/06)

So this explains how officials were able to find 95% of Flight 93 when practically nothing looked to be left of it on the surface that as a result of the high speed impact into a soft patch of earth, about "80%" of Flight 93 had supposedly burrowed under and buried itself in the ground.

Recovery crews said they had to excavate down to about 45ft to dig it all out.

"FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues." - dep.state.pa.us (09/16/01)

So that means 15% of the plane had to have been recovered above ground.

Now if a long thin 757 was able to act like a 'bullet' and burrow itself underground, it's not surprising that not all of it made it underneath.

But what is surprising is the part that supposedly didn't make it under!

"[Wally] Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth... He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area..." - PittsburghLive.com (05/30/02)

But wait a minute, something just doesn't add up.

(No, not the part about most of the plane burrowing under except for the cockpit which supposedly broke off and landed outside in the woods -- although that is a head-scratcher!)

It's just that if a 757 (with its long fuselage, two heavy engines, and huge tail section) was able to mostly burrow under this "soft" soil, you would think it would have left a deep gaping hole in the ground, one that when first responders reached it and looked inside, they would have easily seen the mangled remains of this United Airlines plane down in it.

But instead, all that was seen in the first aerial photos taken shortly after the incident was just a shallow 10ft-deep crater which happened to look more like it was caused by a bomb!

How could that be?!

Well get this, after most of Flight 93 supposedly burrowed more than 30ft underneath the surface, the ground just "happened" to self-seal itself!!!

"the Boeing 757's fuselage disintegrated in a crater that collapsed on itself" - Pittsburg Post Gazette (10/15/01)

"The rest of the 757 continued its downward passage, the sandy loam closing behind it like the door of a tomb." - The Age (09/09/02)

Officials had even said that they actually had to dig quite a ways under that shallow crater to find the plane!

"searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater." - Standard-Times (09/11/02)

"firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it." - St. Petersburg Times (09/10/03)

So by the hole self-sealing itself, any evidence that a 757 was buried deep in the ground -- and thereby easily dispelling any rumors that no plane had actually crashed there -- was blocked from everyone's view.

(but it's all just a coincidence, right?)

So if you still believe in the official story that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville (or that it was shot down, but still crashed in that field for that matter), here's an easy challenge for you:

Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with VISUAL evidence that one of these:

was buried under this shallow crater:

To help with this challenge, here's what a 757 looks like in an empty field.

(Kind of fragile, huh?!)

Now remember, in order to win the challenge, you have to prove with visual evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 757 was BURIED UNDER the crater and not just show a bunch of photos of people digging up dirt with nothing in it, or a bunch of debris collected who-knows-where and say they are pieces of Flight 93 that were found under the crater.

And just in case you were going to show that one photo of the little engine piece only about 4 feet below the surface that's supposedly being extracted from the crater (like that alone is enough to prove a 757 was buried underground!), remember that I showed in a previous episode that this engine scrap looked rusted and wasn't even submerged in the dirt and it just "happened" to be small enough to fit in the very backhoe bucket seen right next to it which strongly suggests that rusted dirt-free engine scrap was planted in that hole by the backhoe bucket, thereby disqualifying that photo as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But don't worry, 80% of a Boeing 757 is still a lot of plane, so there should be plenty of other visual evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Flight 93 was buried under that shallow crater.



Fairy Tail

Alt video links: YouTube (no audio), LiveVideo


When a plane crashes, the tail section usually survives.

Sometimes fully.

Sometimes partially.

And even in very violent crashes where nothing looks to be left...

the tail still survives.

Uncontrolled Descent and Collision With Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585
"The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder were in the impact crater, damaged severely by impact and fire.
The horizontal stabilizer was in the crater, in pieces and severely burned. The horizontal stabilizer parts were located at the top of the pile of destroyed airplane debris." – NTSB

On a Boeing 757, the tail section is HUGE.

So that begs the question:

What happened to Flight 93's tail section???

Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.

They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...

"80% of the plane was in the crater."
- UA93 Memorial ambassador

in which the tail struck the ground really, really hard, thereby causing it to shatter into a million little pieces too small to be seen from a distance.


Can you imagine what the ground that was described as:

On Hallowed Ground
"To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground..." - The Age (09/09/02)

is going to look like after a Boeing 757's massive tail shatters against it like a fragile wine glass dropped on a hard surface?!

You would think that a huge visible mark would be left in the "loose and uncompacted" soil just like the marks the wings supposedly made...

and not some perfect imprint of itself like you see in the cartoons.

I mean that would just be ridiculous to believe!

So that begs another question:

Why IS there a "Wile E. Coyote" tail imprint in the ground?


Who would have thought that a Boeing 757's tail would leave a near-exact impression of itself after striking loose dirt so hard that it was essentially obliterated by it?

Maybe its tail acted like a Samurai sword instead and sliced cleanly through the ground like we are supposed to believe Flight 175's tail did through the South WTC Tower's steel facade?

Well apparently not because whatever made that "tail imprint" in that Shanksville field didn't even penetrate through the ground!

Well so much for the Samurai sword theory.

So how in the world could Flight 93's tail slam down so hard against loose soil that it shatters against it like a dropped wine glass, but looks as if it was just lowered down on its edge thereby leaving a faint impression of itself in the grass from its own weight?

Could it be that this "tail imprint" is something else and just by chance looks like a tail imprint?

Well I suppose, but is it just another coincidence that there is another imprint in the ground that looks to have come from the left horizontal stabilizer?

Of course that begs yet another question:

Did Flight 93 suffer from "taco neck"?

Maybe Flight 93 kept spinning on its right-side as it burrowed into the ground causing the right tail to strike in the imprint created by the right wing?

Well not according to the NTSB’s flight path animation as it shows Flight 93 spinning slightly back to the left before it supposedly hit.

But something else really proves that the right tail didn't strike inside the right wing's imprint.

The ground!

So we have quite a mystery here.

How can Flight 93's tail section do this:

Yet only leave this:

But there's really no mystery at all as to why Flight 93's tail section seemingly disappeared.

Because the plane crash at Shanksville 

was nothing more than a



Fairy Tail!

(er, tale)



The Little Engine That Couldn't

Alt video links: LiveVideo, YouTube (trailer)



Officials told us that both engines from Flight 93 were recovered after it allegedly crashed.

(Well, sort of.)

One of the engines was photographed being recovered from the crater at the scene.

The other was reportedly found in the woods behind the crater, or in the pond.


Don't worry, that's what happens when a story doesn't add up.

Let's start with the engine allegedly found in the woods, or in the pond, or wherever it was supposedly found.

First, it was reported that a "whole engine" was found at a "considerable distance from the crash site."

(Flight 93 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines.)

One report said this massive engine was found 600 yards from the crater.

And got there by "bouncing" off the ground.

Then it was changed from a whole engine, to a 1,000 pound piece of it found far from the crash and to the west of it.

They reportedly had to haul this engine out of the woods with a bulldozer.

And who was it that reportedly hauled this engine out of the woods?

You guessed it!

Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.

Then the story changes again in which now a section of the engine was found in a catchment pond just south of the crater.

This section supposedly was an engine fan.

(or was it a piece of fuselage?)

But regardless of whatever was supposedly found in the water, it was reported that they recovered whatever they did in the woods BEFORE they even searched the pond!

Four Flight 93 victims identified
Saturday, September 22, 2001

"Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.

Yesterday, investigators drained a two-acre pond about 1,000 feet from the crater where the jetliner slammed into the ground, just another step in hunting airliner parts, personal belongings and remains, Miller said." - post-gazette.com

But let's skip all the major inconsistencies of where this engine was found and assume a piece of it was found in the pond.

The pond is about 300 yards south of the crater.

Remember that Flight 93 was said to have crashed at 580mph into the ground at a 40deg angle.

There appears to be markings in the crater of where the two engines from Flight 93 supposedly hit.

(I guess.)

Remember that the ground was said to be "soft & loose" and that's why, they say, most of the plane was able to burrow deep underground.

So if Flight 93 hit this "soft" ground at nearly 600mph and at a 40deg angle then why did one of its massive engines that weighs almost 10,000 lbs burrow underground and the other one just bounced off?

Also, do any of these “engine marks” in the ground even look like marks made from 10,000-pound engines plowing nearly 600mph into the ground at a 40deg angle?

But if these marks were caused by Flight 93’s engines plowing into the ground, how did one not only manage to escape, but tumble so far from the crash?

But let's just assume for a second that its engine (or massive fan) did bounce off the ground after impact.

Could it have tumbled 300 yards after crashing?

Officials say so and I would actually agree.

However, what I am wondering is, whether it was an entire engine, or one of its massive fans, how in the world did it manage to tumble into the pond with this 70ft wall of trees in the way?

But if some part of an engine was found in the pond, who's to say it wasn't just planted there?

Isn't it just a little too coincidental that of all the places a piece of a plane's hot engine would be found is in the cold water of a pond?

So if the perps planted a heavy engine part in the pond, how did they get it there without being noticed?

Now that you're probably curious as to what was actually found in the pond (or woods for that matter) we can probably identify what this mystery part was by the photos taken of it at the scene:

Did you see it?


That's because officials never took any, or at least never released any.

Hmm, kinda weird they never showed us any photos of this large piece from Flight 93 that was reportedly recovered from the pond, or found in the woods.

(or was it found in the bushes???)

So what about the engine seen being excavated from the crater in that photo that wasn't released until 4 1/2 years after 9/11?

Is it from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engine, the kind Flight 93 had?

Kinda hard to tell since it's so smashed up.

But let's assume it is for the sake of argument.

The obvious first question about this engine is why is it only a few feet under the surface when officials said the black boxes were recovered 15ft & 25ft underground?

Also, doesn't this engine look kind of old and rusted?

Right about now it should start becoming obvious that this is a planted engine scrap.

But planted how and when?

There was a person living in a cottage right around the corner and there is a scrap yard right up the street in plain view.

How were the perps able to plant such an engine scrap without being noticed?

Seems unlikely that they dug up the field and planted it before the "crash".

So realistically, the perps would have to have planted it sometime afterwards.

But how could they have done that with so many responders stationed at the scene?

Well, it helps when the piece of debris you are planting fits neatly in the equipment you are "excavating" it with!

They just used one of their excavators at the scene and simply lowered it down for a nice little photo-op.

Didn't you notice the engine scrap was small enough to fit in the backhoe bucket?

And that no dirt is caked on it after supposedly burrowing down "soft soil" at nearly 600mph?!

And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.

And if it can’t get more obvious the perps threw little pieces of shiny aluminum in the crater to try to make their staged photo-op look more real.

When will they learn that United Airlines planes are not silver, but dark blue and grey?

But you can’t blame them for trying.

I mean, what are you supposed to do when you have to excavate a hole with no plane in it?

(See also: The planted engines at Shanksville)