Hoodwinked at Shanksville

Click here for Video

Alt video links: YouTube (no audio), LiveVideo

---------------------------------------------
Transcript:

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.

Wow!

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?

WTF???

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

GREAT

BIG

Fairy Tail!

(er, tale)

Alt video links: LiveVideo, YouTube (trailer)

-----------------------------

Transcript:

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.

Confused?

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!

Update:

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?

No?

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.