This is part 3 of the series. The other 2 articles regard the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 and can be found via the links below;
Flight 93 was the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed or was brought down somehow into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11. This particular "hijacked" airliner was supposedly heading for the White House before plummeting into a field.
The strangest thing about this particular Deep State lie is the crash site itself. Numerous eye witnesses and reporters on the scene saw nothing but a relatively small crater and next to no debris from what was presumed to be where a 100 ton jet had just crashed... "Nothing to distinguish that a plane had just crashed there" said a photographer.
What was there was a hole that was 15 feet deep and about 30 feet wide. You could make out what appears to be an impression of the wings in the earth. A Boeing 757 did this...
The FBI claim that the plane buried itself in the ground, hence no debris. They state "much of the plane and the contents were found buried beneath the soft dirt" and that "Evidence technicians found the flight data recorder about 12 feet below the surface and the cockpit voice recorder about 25 feet deep."
This presents a huge problem with the official bullshit *cough* I mean narrative. Both of these black box recorders are located in the tail of the plane and we know what that means. They are saying that everything from the cockpit all the way to the very end of the plane buried itself deep underground as it hit the field.
A Boeing 757 is 47 metres long, that's 154 feet. So the FBI and the powers-that-be are saying that all of that somehow burrowed it's way into the ground plus another 10-30 feet for good measure. This must be the case if what they say about where they found the flight recorders is true. This is clearly impossible and utter crap.
Flight records show that the plane hit the ground at about 45 degrees and had turned upside down prior to impact. This is contrary to debunkers who claim it fell almost vertically. Even so, the field was not "soft dirt" as the FBI had stated, it was hard and compact soil.
Whatever angle it fell at, how does a field swallow a 100 ton, 154 feet long airliner? Because that's what they say happened, it was swallowed up!
You only need compare the crash site from Flight 93 to that of the Lockerbie disaster in 1988. Even though the Boeing 747 that hit Lockerbie is bigger than a 757, the plane that hit Lockerbie broke up in mid-air prior to impact due to an explosion. Only parts of that plane hit the ground as opposed to the whole airliner, yet the size of the craters they left are worlds apart.
The damage at Lockerbie was monumental, the site in Shanksville was like a rabbit burrow in comparison.
At Lockerbie, the largest piece of debris was most of the cockpit and half of the front of the fuselage. For perspective, it was easily the size of a double-decker bus or large coach.
At Shanksville? A small piece of fuselage that is 2 passenger windows wide. That's it. And this was not seen until 5 years after 9/11, in a photo. It could have been from anything.
At Shanksville the enormous jet engines were not present, apart from ALLEGED small sections. They were complete at Lockerbie. If you look at photos of any commercial plane crash, they also show that the tail of the plane almost ALWAYS survives fairly intact as it is usually the last part of the plane to hit the ground. At Shanksville there was nothing of the sort. Another disintegration, a la the steel and concrete of the Twin Towers and WTC 7?
Large pieces of the wings are usually found after a plane crash. They are weak and snap off when they hit anything remotely firm. However, in Shanksville, they appear to have left an impression where they continued on through into the hard earth, completely buried... It's a joke, like a sick cartoon.
The FBI also claimed that 95% of the wreckage of Flight 93 had been recovered within 2 weeks of the crash. With a 100 ton plane, that's approximately 95 tons of wreckage then. A lot of wreckage, I'm sure you'll agree. So if that is the case, where is it all? We have never been shown it.
Whenever there is a high-profile plane crash, the authorities go to great efforts to reconstruct what they can from the wreckage. This results in "models" that look pretty much like the original aircraft, albeit bashed up and missing a few pieces.
If the FBI has 95% of the wreckage of Flight 93, why have they not attempted a reconstruction? I can answer this for us; they're lying bastards and don't really have it. This would have been the perfect way to silence all the conspiracy theorists; If they had the wreckage they'd have undoubtedly conducted a reconstruction.
The FBI have impounded all this alleged wreckage and never allowed anyone to see it. So how do we know if Flight 93 even crashed in that field in Shanksville in the first place? We don't.
Flight 93 was carrying 8-10 THOUSAND gallons of fuel when it crashed. Yet there was no huge black cloud seen rising as is always seen initially at a plane crash site. What was seen was a grey mushroom cloud, the type seen after a bomb has exploded. What's more, eye witnesses and reporters all stated that they could NOT smell jet fuel at the site, which they should have. They acknowledged this and described that all they could smell was "scorched earth".
Debris and Wreckage
This is where it all gets even sillier, especially for those who peddle the official narrative.
They, as in NIST and the government, claim that Flight 93 crashed in one piece. So how come debris and wreckage was found up to 8 miles away?! This is a ridiculous proposition.
For example, small pieces of debris were found at Indian Lake, 2 miles away. Officials and debunkers claim that this "debris" was blown there by the wind. In film of the crash site it can be seen that there was nothing more than a gentle breeze that day. Not only that but it wasn't bits of paper that were found; eye witnesses report finding pieces of seats and chunks of melted plastic. Even what appeared to be a rib bone.
The furthest away that debris was found was in New Baltimore, EIGHT miles away. Even the FBI and State Police confirmed that this had indeed come from Flight 93.
So how on earth did this happen? Especially when you consider that the official narrative claims the plane was intact when it crashed. It's as fishy as Grimsby docks after a good catch.
A local called John Fleegle claimed he saw the lights and TV flicker before hearing a big explosion. He later mentioned this to a friend who had previously been in the US Air Force. This man simply stated "That plane was shot down. The flickering of the lights was the radar being zapped before they shoot".
Many other locals noticed the power behaving strangely or simply going off. Shanksville Mayor, Ernie Stuhl, had the following to say;
"I know of 2 people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile. They both live very close [to the crash site] within a couple of hundred yards... this one fellow served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them and he heard one that day."
Since researching this and my other articles I have come across another, possibly more intriguing possiblity; DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS. Otherwise known as DEWs, there are some that feel they may have been used in every attack that comprised the 9/11 crime. And their research makes sense.
This will be covered in a separate article, keep an eye out because it's a game-changing and shocking alternative to the official nonsense and most other narratives.
The "small white plane"
A local called Susan McIlwain is one eye witness who saw a small white plane fly over her car towards the direction of the crash site just before the actual crash. She got out of her car to watch it and saw this white "object" turn towards the crash site and go down. She was not the only one to see this flying white aircraft.
Debunkers, those fucking geniuses (genii?) who back up the NIST report and official narrative, claim that what they saw was simply a private corporate jet. They claim that it's a simple explanation and that it was a Dassault Falcon jet, confirmed by air traffic control who asked the nearest plane to go and check the crash site for them. This would tie in if the eye witnesses had seen it AFTER Flight 93 had crashed...
This is more garbage from those of "Popular Mechanics" as the witnesses saw this white aircraft BEFORE Flight 93 allegedly crashed.
John Fleegle, a local eye witness mentioned above, was at the crash site within 1 minute and saw this "white plane" already flying away, intentionally into the sun to avoid being seen properly. Therefore, the plane that air traffic control had asked to check on the crash site would not have even been there yet as only ONE MINUTE had passed.
I apologise if this little section sounds a bit "ranty", these popular mechanics debunkers grind my gears with their ignorance (is it on purpose?) of certain critical details...
This is a controversial subject as if the plane was shot down in some way, the fate of Flight 93 had nothing to do with the passengers heroically forcing it down. Even the 9/11 commission themselves have refuted the passenger's role in the crash, claiming it was the hijackers that crashed it on purpose based on the audio evidence from the cockpit voice recorder.
The passengers did not make it into the cockpit at any point.
The official report states "At 9.57am the passenger assault began". However, this went on for over 5 minutes and they had still not managed to gain access to the cockpit. Then, as the passenger assault on the cockpit continued, the following was apparently recorded in the cockpit;
"[Jarrah asked] 'Is that it? Shall we finish it off?' [A hijacker responded] 'No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.'"
Remember, this was allegedly taken from a black box that has never seen the light of day or been listened to by anyone other than the authorities.
At 10.02am one of the hijackers allegedly shouted "Pull it down! Pull it down!". The report states that the hijackers believed that the passengers were about to break through into the cockpit. Then Flight 93 supposedly did it's downward maneuvering with one of the hijackers shouting "Allah is the greatest" repeatedly. Flight 93 proceeded to hit that field at 580mph...
This raises a few questions; They were only 20 minutes from Washington, their intended destination. The passengers had not been able to break into the cockpit so why did they crash the plane instead of attempting to carry on?
Also, if the hijackers believed they wouldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try and crash the plane into a town to cause as much death and devastation as possible? It's a bit of an anti-climax for the "terrorists" to hit an empty field when there were small towns nearby.
There is no proof that any terrorists boarded the plane or that they entered the cockpit, except what the official narrative tells us.
The main alleged hijacker was "unfit to fly solo" in a single engined Cessna, let alone fly a Boeing 757 in such a manner.
There was a false, simultaneous hijacking reported that drew attention away from the "real" one on Flight 93.
There is NO proof that Flight 93 crashed in that field in Shanksville. There was just a small crater with wing shapes on the sides. No wreckage and hardly any debris. Pathetic cartoon evidence.
Then we have the strange debris-field that stretched across 8 miles. Either Flight 93 was shot down or it was intact, if it was indeed anywhere near Shanksville!
Finally there's the strange white plane or aircraft of some type. What was it? Nobody knows... Though there is much speculation that it was a fighter jet.
Personally, I don't believe Flight 93 crashed in that field in Shanksville on 9/11. Something did but it certainly wasn't a commercial airliner, the crater was tiny. I can only pay respects to every innocent person who was murdered, SOMEHOW, on that day and keep searching for the truth.
Next time we shall finish this series off by trying to figure out what on earth happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. And then we shall take a closer look at DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons) and their possible role in this dastardly crime of the century.
Did you like this article?
Thank you for your vote!
From our advertisers
David Icke Interviewed At The New York Premiere Of Renegade - The David Icke Dot-Connector Videocast
From our advertisers