There is one photo in this used as evidence that is a still from the "Flight 93" movie. Every other image used / interview is legit (the one with the smallest hole in the ground with two people NOT in bunny suits looking in the hole)
quotes from eyewitnesses and journalists who actually saw the crash site.
"It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground." "There was nothing you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there." "There's really nothing left of that plane." "There was virtually nothing left of that plane." "The plane has totally disintegrated." "There was nothing there that you could really say was an airplane."
Not saying you're wrong, or the official story is correct, but there is a logical difference between other crashes and this one as to why they may "look different" and it is a pretty important distinction.
The other crashes, the pilots were doing whatever they possibly could do keep the plane from crashing. There was human intervention, including and especially, getting the plane to glide speed and not at full cruise speed.
According to "story," 93 was traveling at cruise speed of 500+ mph, and dove into ground at a near 90 degree angle.
(Of course, to do that maneuver, it would have to be an inverted dive, and I doubt those hijackers could accomplish that move, even accidentally.)
So, yes, a crash site of a similar sized plane will look radically different from a plane trying NOT to crash, and one deliberately smashed into something, including the ground or a concrete building.
Again, I am not saying "you're wrong", I am saying evidence of "looking different" isn't "proof", per se.
One other 9/11 comment I will add. The pilots and FAs that were on those flights, what did they do with them, if there were no planes? My cousin worked for AA for 30+ years, in 2001 was based out of Logan doing long flights (transcontinental and transatlantic only) and knew those crews. Her husband at the time was an AA pilot, and his best friend was co-pilot of flight 77. Did they just off those crews to make it look good? I'd like that part answered - what happened to those people?
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 2 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2021 13:36:39 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Rome2point0
[ - ] Rome2point0 [op] 2 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2021 13:49:12 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 22, 2021 14:45:59 ago (+0/-0)
The other crashes, the pilots were doing whatever they possibly could do keep the plane from crashing. There was human intervention, including and especially, getting the plane to glide speed and not at full cruise speed.
According to "story," 93 was traveling at cruise speed of 500+ mph, and dove into ground at a near 90 degree angle.
(Of course, to do that maneuver, it would have to be an inverted dive, and I doubt those hijackers could accomplish that move, even accidentally.)
So, yes, a crash site of a similar sized plane will look radically different from a plane trying NOT to crash, and one deliberately smashed into something, including the ground or a concrete building.
Again, I am not saying "you're wrong", I am saying evidence of "looking different" isn't "proof", per se.
One other 9/11 comment I will add. The pilots and FAs that were on those flights, what did they do with them, if there were no planes? My cousin worked for AA for 30+ years, in 2001 was based out of Logan doing long flights (transcontinental and transatlantic only) and knew those crews. Her husband at the time was an AA pilot, and his best friend was co-pilot of flight 77. Did they just off those crews to make it look good? I'd like that part answered - what happened to those people?