Flight 93, Shanksville, PA
A United Airlines Boeing 757-222 aircraft
The portion of the video "911: In Plane Sight" that pertains to UA 93 begins at 0:53:45 and ends at 0:55:22. When you load the video you should advance to that time point. You have probably already seen the earlier portions of the video that pertain to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.
The photo on the left a photo of a United Boeing 757-222, the same model aircraft that allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA on 9-11-01. Use it as your benchmark for expected wreckage, color schemes, etc, as you view the "IPS" video and the 'rebuttal' video.
What kind of plane? 767 or 757? This is a significant discrepancy of information but not to the story. The actual aircraft for UA Flight 93 is a 757-222 not a 767. The only significant error is that the reporter misstated the aircraft model. If this proves to be the only discrepancy, I can overlook it.
This is supposed to be footage of the crash site in PA. Do you see any wreckage that is consistent with an aircraft the size of the one in the above photo? So which was the real Flight 93? The one in Shanksville or Cleveland? I think the alleged wreckage tells the story.
Now for the supposed 'rebuttal'.
The following video 10 minute video which I am referring to as the "Rebuttal" is an attempt to put credibility to the information that UA Flight 93 (Boeing 757-222) crashed in Shanksville, PA at 10am 9-11-01. Let's view it carefully and see what is shown and also what is heard. Compare the 'wreckage' presented this video to PSA Flight 1771 or that of the more recent crash in Lagos, Nigeria.
The only thing the rebuttal video contains that is likely actual, is the voice recording of the last few minutes of radio contact between Cleveland Center and Flight 93. THAT'S ALL! My first question is, "What is the source of the recorded data? Is it the recording from Cleveland Center or the Cockpit Voice Recorder (black box)? My second question is how was this recording obtained? I assure you that any evidence pertaining to any of the aspects of the alleged 9-11 terrorist attacks that is the property of the government (FAA [Cleveland Center] and NTSB [Black box]) are a government agencies) is classified and retained as evidence. This information was either hacked or given to the makers of the video. Given that the video is intended to corroborate the government view, I would assume the latter. If it was hacked, the perpetrator of the video would be in jail and the video removed from the internet. As a former flight instructor, I am familiar with the rules relating to NTSB investigations, and personally have studied many reports for details that could prevent future accidents.
So let's take a look at the choice of visuals used as the video portion, visual by visual with their related time marks. These images were carefully chosen to connect a particular visual idea with the content of the sound track.
A photograph of the alleged crash site. Distance shot (Photo 1) intended to connect the idea of a crash site with the loss of contact with an airplane. At present there is no valid connection. The only thing that could be evidence at this point is that at some point radio contact was lost.
Another photograph of the crash site. Closer shot showing smoking woods behind (Photo 2) with the same reason as photo 1.
Crater and grooves in terrain that looks like a lunar landscape. (Photo 3) I believe the sole purpose of this photo was to impress you with the MSNBC headline that the black box was found, supported by the next visual. Remember that the morning of 9-11, not one segment of the media was making any effort to validate the information they were presenting. The entire media blitz was totally on the fly, and anyone that was willing to say anything, or any piece of visual information was shown regardless of its validity.
Pit, backhoe and old truck tire. This is not a wreck site but a constructions site. Look at the background in the upper left. (Photo 4) I think the truck tire was supposed to make you think it was part of the landing gear of an aircraft.
A government exhibit photo of an extremely damaged flight recorder. (Photo 5) Since flight 93 allegedly landed in Cleveland at 11am, this black box is clearly NOT from Flight 93, but the visual is intended to make you think so.
A puff of smoke behind a farm. (Photo 6) I have seen farm bonfires with more smoke than this. You are being seduced into believing this is the smoke from the crash. I don't think so. Compare the volume of smoke in this visual with the volume of smoke of the planes crashing into the WTC. No comparison. But be assured, the mind can be seduced into making you believe the reality of what you are seeking and accepting the premises being presented.
A damaged seat belt (Photo 7) This is not an airline seat belt. Anyone ever on a flight with any airline knows that airline belt webbing is smooth, not grooved, and the belt hardware is closer to that which might have been in service in the 1940's. As explained earlier, all these images are meant to make you think they came from the crash sight.
A crater with no real evidence, just what looks like trash. (Photo 8) Also note the background looks like it is covered with many acres of brown grasses. Compare this to the green grass on the farm in photo 6. At this point the preparers of this video are getting really sloppy in their associations. The major film studios pay large salaries to individuals to act as continuity coordinators, a fancy term that means they check that all the details filmed in one scene are identical to the continuation of the same scene on another day or time. As a movie buff, one of my favorite critical views of films is to find the mismatched, and I find plenty. Even the best paid folks miss details. These folks missed them all. As you will see as you continue to watch, most of these visuals were selected only for their suggestion value and are totally unrelated.
Wreckage meant to look like it came from an airliner. (Photo 9) These windows are too close together to be from an airliner. Further the wall of an airliner is significantly curved. This wall is not. It is more likely this wreckage came from another source entirely. I find it also interesting that the person writing the subtitles does not know how to spell VERIFY. As you continue this critique I eventually refer to this photo as the train wreck.
Another government exhibit photo showing a piece of wreckage with the colors red, white and blue. (Photo 10) Notice the crease in the red, and again in the blue areas. The surfaces of an airliner are all smooth and rounded. If you visit the web site for United Airlines, you can see real photos of UA aircraft with the company paint scheme. Does this image match anything from United? Where did they get this photo of a piece of patriotic colored junk? Also notice the deep shadows. The photos of the various craters are shown in wide open expanses. Further note that the greenery in the sunlit area is not consistent with the surroundings of the alleged crash site and crater images presented.
Another government exhibit showing some trash, clearly not wreckage, in a semi wooded area. (Photo 11) Note the trees are not consistent with the other site photos.
Photo of tall smoking wooded area. (Photo 12)
Kinetic energy graphic. (Item 13) What is this about?
Photo 4 again. Backhoe and truck tire.
Photo 2 again. Smoking woods
Photo 5 again. Flight recorder. I thought twice was spelled with a "c" not an "s". Who did they hire to do this transcription?
Photo 8 again. Crater and grass
Photo 7 again Seat belt.
Photo 6 again. Farm Smoke
Photo 9 again. RWB
Photo 9 again. Train wreckage
New crater photo. (Photo 14) No discernible wreckage. And only civilians in the photo and nothing to relate it to any other photo.
Photo 3 again. Lunar landscape
Photo 12 again. Tall trees
Photo 4 again. Backhoe and tire
Photo 1 again. Distance Shot
Photo 6 again. Farm smoke
Photo 8 again. Trash crater & grass
Photo 4 again. Backhoe and tire
Photo 1 again. Distance shot.
Photo 7 again. Seat belt.
Photo 14 again. New crater.
Photo 5 again. Black box
Photo 9 again. Train wreckage
Photo 10 again. Red white and blue
Photo 9 again. train wreckage
Photo 11 again. Two trees
Photo 6 again. Farm smoke
Photo 14 again. New crater
So what is my point? This video is intended to be a kind of rebuttal against other real evidence, and as such is totally bogus. It was made by a real amateur, and with no images that can truly be related to the alleged crash site. The reason is simple. There is no crash site from United Flight 93 on 9-11-01. But this really should bring up more very serious questions:
If UA Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville:
- Where is the wreckage? To what facility was the wreckage removed for examination by the NTSB? Where is the NTSB report on the crash of United Flight 93?
- Where is the passenger manifest? Where are the bodies? Where are the death certificates? Where is the evidence of payment of damages by the airline to the passengers of UA 93? Where is the evidence of life insurance paid to the relatives of the passengers of UA 93?
One of the most viewed articles on UA 93 is the Wikipedia article. If you really examine this article, you will find that all the information for the article was derived in some way from governments sources. (Also note that most of the photos in the 'Rebuttal' video are identical to the ones in the Wikipedia article.) Is it not likely that they would only supply information, valid or not, to support their position? The public places a great deal of value on Wikipedia information. Is that value perhaps a bit misplaced?
If anyone has provable answers to any of these questions, I would love to hear them. Contact me.
Let me close with two psychological questions: If enough people repeat a lie, does it make it true? If enough people believe a lie does it make it true? Sadly, the following idea is true: What you believe is true for you.