Questions concerning the crash site of UA 93

[John Doe II]

I’ve a few questions concerning the crash site of UA 93. There are some things that strike me as very odd but unfortunately my physical knowledge is quite limited.

e.g. let’s compare the crash site of UA 93 with the one of Helios 522.
Helios 522 was running out of fuel and as it was piloted by somebody who wanted to save the plane it certainly crashed with a lower speed than UA 93 (580 mph).
UA 93 had still quite a lot of fuel and flew at maximum speed. Moreover plane and passengers basically vaporized.
The crash sites were in one point quite similar. Both areas were grass and nearby trees.
Especially given the fact that the planes created a huge fire in the Pentagon and officially in the WTC as well shouldn’t we expect the fire at UA 93’s crash site bigger than the one of Helios 522?

Here is one photo from UA 93:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/5b-dby/2.shtml

That is a raging fire I’d say!

Can anybody please come forward and show me any photo of a fire at UA 93’s crash site?

Eyewitnesses agree that firefighters had a very simple job.

On this photo one even sees the Pentalawn in Shanksville:



How can the absence of fire be explained?

Other questions:

A plane crashing into soft ground:
I’d expect the plane to dig itself into the ground.

A plane crashing into hard ground:
I’d expect the plane to splatter all over the place.

The strange thing for UA 93 is that both things happened:
While on the one hand an explosion 200 feet high was seen and the plane broke in pieces not longer than a phone book on the other hand the crater had a depth of 50 feet and the CVR was found at 25 feet. Yet, apparently no bigger part of the plane was found in the crater neither.

How is this contradiction explained?

[spooked911]

1. Great points!

The lack of widespread fire from UA93 is very strange.

As far as what the crash should have looked like, here is my take on it:



Certainly, I can't figure out how flight 93 both exploded massively spreading pieces of debris far and wide yet also buried itself into the ground leaving no parts of the plane visible.

[John Doe II]

2. Sorry, Spooked!

I'm thinking since a couple of days about this stuff and I completely forgot that at least half of what I've written are your ideas!

:blush:

[spooked911]

3. No problem-- particularly since you are the one who first introduced me

to the weirdness of the flight 93 crash.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

5. I wonder how much we can trust the flight 93 eyewitnesses?

Certainly, the flight 77 eyewitnesses are very contradictory and perhaps even delusional. Perhaps the flight 93 eyewitnesses are just as bad?

[hack89]

7. Well, they don't support your theory so of course they can't be believed!

It wasn't hard to see this coming ... there are entire "smoking gun" threads on this forum based on anonymous quotes from a single witness but god forbid we believe hundreds of people who saw an airliner crash into the Pentagon.:eyes:

[spooked911]

8. No, they don't support the fact that the only way the crater could

have been formed was by the airplane going down at a 90 degree angle.

Just like at the pentagon, the eyewitnesses don't back up the physical evidence.

Now, what is more reliable-- eyewitness testimony or physical evidence?

Hint: many eyewitnesses contradict each other.

[hack89]

11. I will take the eyewitness over google engineers any day...

the huge flaw in your argument is that you do not have the technical expertise to pass judgment on the physical evidence. For all I know you are an English major or a 7-11 clerk - you are certainly not an engineer or a trained crash investigator. The real comparison here is the word of hundreds of laymen who saw an airliner versus a single layman who was not there but has an opinion.

[spooked911]

22. how do you explain the contradicting eyewitnesses?

And if there is a contradiction, how do you resolve it?

[hack89]

23. You start with an experienced and skilled crash investigator..

I don't do anything because I accept that I know nothing about investigating crashes.

[spooked911]

24. Do you think crashes should obey laws of physics and basic

mechanical principles?

Btw, I don't think you are a structural engineer, yet you seem to freely offer your opinion on the WTC collapses.

So, let's just accept we are all reasonably intelligent and educated people, okay?

As such, we should be able to fucking figure things out for ourselves. Don't give me this "only experts can do it" crap.

[hack89]

25. But why should I take your word over an experts?

Not all opinions are created equal. I express my opinion because I am just as qualified (or unqualified) as you are and I enjoy the head to head give and take. The difference between you and me is that I am not so arrogant as to believe my uneducated and non-technical perspective trumps the word of true professionals.

[spooked911]

28. Unfortunately many of the professionals have been coerced into

giving out misleading and incorrect info.

Just take the EPA analysis of the ground zero air as a well-known example and multiply that over and over again.

Or take this example of a whistleblower losing their job for pointing out something very wrong:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/2357
"The top U.S. Army contracting official who first raised criticism over Halliburton's no-bid contract in Iraq was demoted Sunday for what the army called poor job performance -- the first time her performance was rated low in 20 years.

Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) blasted the Bush administration’s decision to fire the lead government whistleblower in a statement to RAW STORY.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has lowered the axe on someone courageous enough to speak the truth about an abuse of taxpayer dollars," he remarked. "Ms. Greenhouse was simply being honest, which seems to be enough to get you fired in this Administration.

"This action is meant to send a chilling message to other federal workers: keep your mouth shut," he added."

So I will take my common sense over a government official who has been told what they need to say, thank you very much.

[spooked911]

29. Because government officials can't be trusted in this matter

neither can people who can be coerced by the government.

The govt is clearly makes their people lie: look at the well-known example of the EPA reporting how clean the ground zero air was.

And look at this govt whistleblower:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/2357
"The top U.S. Army contracting official who first raised criticism over Halliburton's no-bid contract in Iraq was demoted Sunday for what the army called poor job performance -- the first time her performance was rated low in 20 years.

Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) blasted the Bush administration’s decision to fire the lead government whistleblower in a statement to RAW STORY.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has lowered the axe on someone courageous enough to speak the truth about an abuse of taxpayer dollars," he remarked. "Ms. Greenhouse was simply being honest, which seems to be enough to get you fired in this Administration.

"This action is meant to send a chilling message to other federal workers: keep your mouth shut," he added."

[spooked911]

30. sorry for the double post-- there was some bug in the system

[MrSammo1]

36. So, let's just accept we are all reasonably intelligent and educated people

Considering the amount of Magic Jet/free falling building believers in this forum..........You've got to be kidding?

[MrSammo1]

35. There's a good chance

He has two eyes!

[Kevin Fenton]

12. You can't have it both ways

Either the eyewitnesses who identified the plane and its course are reliable, in which case those who believe it is United 93 have to give an account of the two apparent courses (but you can't object that it wasn't a Boeing 757). Or the witnesses are unreliable and we don't have to give an account of the two different approaches (from the NW and E), but we do have to explain the crash site.

You can't say the eyewitnesses were reliable when they registered the approach path(s), but not when they saw the plane. Which is it to be?

[John Doe II]

15. No contradiction

You can rely on eyewitness for the flight path. Of course you can. If you have plenty of them and they are very coherent.
But actually only one witness saw the crash. So, it is simply a different question which flight path the plane took and if and how it crashed.
Have a look on all crash site photos and tell me at what angle you believe the plane crashed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Maybe because Flight 93 didn't crash there?

Looks more like a missile crater to me.

Funny how most of the debris field was ahead of the 'crash site'. People reported seeing parts of the plane raining down over Indian Lake which is a few miles ahead of the crash site. Even had one report of seeing someone recover body parts out of the lake.

It think at least two missiles were fired. The one that broke up Flight 93 over Indian Lake and the one that created the crater.

[spooked911]

9. I'm beginning to like that theory more and more

though the crater could have been made by pre-planted bombs and some spare plane parts...

[spooked911]

10. A new crater picture!

The one with the power pole (second down on left)-- it is nice because it helps give some scale to the crater:

[Kevin Fenton]

13. No fire

(1) There were 60 tons of combustibles on each floor of the WTC. There were also plenty of combustibles at the Pentagon (plus those DU warheads in the ONI cupboard!). What amount of combustibles is there in the average Pennsylvanian field?
(2) You write that United 93 "still had a lot of fuel". How do you know? If the plane were holed by a missile, most probably a heat-seeker which hit the engine, then it is logical that the fuel would escape during flight.
(3) The combustibles from the plane are said to have been buried in the earth, where they could not have caught fire.
(4) The picture appears to have been taken some time after the crash. Perhaps what little fire there was had already gone out by then.

[John Doe II]

14. Fire

Eyewitnesses agree that there was no fire. There is no photo of fire. Show me anything that supports that there has been a photo.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Post 15

In post 15 you write that only one eyewitness saw the crash. Here you write that eyewitnesses agree that there was no fire. How can an eyewitness who did not see the crash have known there was no fire?

A pilot of small planes once told me (I had said I was worried about flying in small planes) that propeller planes were actually safer than jets, because a pilot can bring a propeller plane in on one engine, but a twin-engined jet cannot be controlled if it loses one engine. Would this not account for the flight path?

[John Doe II]

18. Eyewitness

Only one (Lee Purbaugh) actually saw the plane crashing into the ground. Numerous (about 15 I know) have been at the crash site within the next half an hour. No fire of any importance. No trace of a fire of any importance on any photo. Please compare this to the Helios' fire.
The problem of the flight path is that at the same time northwest and east of the crash site people see or hear a plane above their head. But for more check out the thread "The official UA 93 story is a big lie".

[Kevin Fenton]

21. How long does jet fuel burn?

According to the NIST report into the collapses of the WTC, spilled jet fuel usually burns for about five minutes. Therefore, eyewitnesses arriving at the scene of the crash within the next half an hour would very probably not have seen any jet fuel on fire. Most of the combustibles in the plane are reported to have been underground, so I do not find it unusual that they were not on fire. As to the combustibles in the field, what combustibles?

Helios photo
How long after the crash was it taken?
What is on fire? Combustibles from the plane or the vegetation around the crash site?

[John Doe II]

26. Seriously

Is there any doubt that there has been a fire at the Helios' crash site? No. In fact the photo shows a quite impressive one.

The eyewitnesses I'm talking about arrived within minutes lates half an hour. NObody talks about a fire.
As I know you always doubt eyewitnesses and I'm afraid the complete absence of them doesn't convince you I can only ask you to have a look at all the photos of the crash site. Do you find any traces of a fire. The grass in the photo I show is as green as ever and only inches from the crater.
So, where is the fire?
And if there wasn't a fire although the crater is surrounded by things that burn perfectly: Why is there no fire?

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Come on, I bet you've been to Greece

and you know what sort of terrain the Helios plane crashed into - hard, which meant the combustibles from the plane caught fire (instead of going underground) and also ignited the surrounding dry vegetation. United 93 crashed in soft ground and many of the combustibles went into the ground - that's why they couldn't burn. Given the circumstances of the crash, it is hardly surprising that what little fire there was was not photographed.

[John Doe II]

33. Yeah, I've been to Greece several times

It’s very dry ground in summer. Yet, if you look at the photo of UA 93’s crater the grass is very dry, too. And the grass and the trees around the crater are certainly helpful to create a fire.
How can an explosion that flames 200 feet into the air leave almost no fire?
And the plane didn't completely enter the ground by the way.
Don’t forget that a burnt bible, a burnt seat cushion, a burnt passport of Jarrah were found outside the crater. And many many parts smaller than a telephone book were outside the crater.

That there was no fire of any importance seems to be a fact.
That there was no jet fuel in and around the crater is certainly not a fact but simply false.
The only witness of the crash tells this:
Lee Purbaugh “ran three hundred yards to the place where the plane had crashed. The field reeked of jet fuel. Trees had been signed, branches were smoldering and underbrush aflame. One of the plane’s tires burned. There was a smoking hole in the ground. But why wasn’t there more fire?”
(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes, 299)

If you doubt Longman:
“People who rushed to the smoldering crash site said it smelled of burning fuel and rubber. Several said they could not believe that such a huge plane would leave such an apparently small crater in the ground. John Fleegle, service manager of the Indian Lake Marina, said he noticed bits of clothing, a shirt, underwear, pieces of paper, wiring and a four-foot piece of what appeared to be the aluminum skin of the plane. He said he climbed the roof of a nearby cabin and snuffed out the fire caused by the remnants of a seat cushion.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?ex=1113451200&en=799e89a96943e5d9&ei=5070

And this even happens the next day:
“The crash impact left a crater estimated to be 10-feet deep and 20-feet wide. The site was still smoldering Wednesday afternoon and investigators said "hot spots" caused by jet fuel had flared up in the early morning hours.”
(Cox News Service, 9/12/01 c)

So, my question remains:
How can it be explained that this devastating crash that resulted in a plane entering the ground 50 feet deep and at the same time creates an explosion rising 200 feet up in the air leaves basically no fire?

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Critical mass

First of all you say there wasn't a fire, then you quote a load of eyewitnesses who say there were lots of little fires, but they went out/were put out before they could grow. I don't understand your method and I can't see why you think the fire(s) should grow. If the plane's 50 feet deep in the ground, doesn't that mean the combustibles are as well?

[John Doe II]

37. Method

I never said that there was absolutely no fire.
Let's put the facts out:

The fire that happened after the crash of Helios 522 is quite a big one. Apparently one that couldn't be stopped as easily as the eyewitnesses I mentioned managed at the crater of UA 93.

Helios had defintely less fuel and definitely a bigger fire.
As I said in the original post/

Therefore: Why was there no bigger fire at the crash of UA 93

You write:
If the plane's 50 feet deep in the ground, doesn't that mean the combustibles are as well?

No, that's not correct.
Lots of small parts (apparently of the plane were not in the ground. Many easily burnable things like parts of seats, clothes etc as well.
And this brings us to onoe central question (and as I said I lack the knowledge to give an answer but maybe you can help me out here).

The nose of the plane is 50 feet in the ground.
The CVR is found at 25 feet in the ground.
The CVR is in the tail.
Therefore the ground that was thrown out by the crash somehow must have fallen back on the plane and covered it with another 25 feet depth. And still at the same time much of the plane was outside the crater.

What happened here?

And as you are a supporter of the shoot down scenario:
Wouldn't UA 93 if it was shot down have crashed by far not as deep into the ground? And wouldn't the pieces of the plane not have been blown around in a much bigger quantity (please keep in mind that UA 93 never crossed Indian Lake. So a shoot down doesn't explain simply the findings at Indian Lake).

[AZCat]

19. Your source is wrong.

Twin-engined jets can indeed be controlled if they lose one engine. In fact, pilots certified to fly these sorts of planes (multi-engine) are required to train and be tested on various subjects, including flying with one engine inoperative during straight-and-level flight and turns and performing an instrument approach with one engine inoperative.

It can actually be more difficult to fly a twin prop plane with one engine because the rotation of the operating prop can cause the plane to yaw dangerously. Generally there is one engine known as the "critical" engine because it produces a stronger moment around the center of gravity of the plane. Since both props usually rotate the same direction, the location (left side or right side) determines which one is the critical engine.

For reference:
FAA Airmen Test Standards
Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards
FAA pdf - same page)

wikipedia - critical engine

[Kevin Fenton]

20. Thanks for the info

Still, I believe there is no reason that United 93 must have been flying in a straight line, regardless of who was at the controls.

[John Doe II]

27. The straight line is not in question

A plane is simply seen at two different places at the same time. See the above mentioned thread for further details please.

[John Doe II]

16. Sorry typo

Of course the last sentence was supposed to be:

Show me anything that supports that there had been a fire.

Btw as Helios 522 had not single drop of fuel left I think we can agree that UA 93 had more fuel that Helios?

[MrSammo1]

31. What questions?

Flight 93 simply completed the 911 day of illusion!