Sometimes things are TOO obvious. After looking at photos of other crash sites similar to Flight 93, I'm seriously having a hard time believing that there is **ANY** chance that Flight 93 crashed in the hole where they say it did.

Here's what the Flight 93 crash site looked like on 9/11 just after the crash:

Flight 93 "Crash Site"

Flight 93 "Crater"

Is this possibly what a normal crash site looks like???

Flight 585

Some argue that Flight 93 left no debris field because it crashed nose-first at high speed. So did Flight 585 when it crashed near Denver.

quote: "Four days later, on the blustery morning of March 3, 1991, Captain Harold Green and First Officer Patricia Eidson were bringing N999UA down for a routine landing in Colorado Springs. At 1,000 feet, the jet suddenly flipped to the right and dived straight down, smashing into a city park and killing all 25 on board."

www.pulitzer.org

Did Flight 585 leave a debris field? Did the explosion scorch the earth?

Here are the photos of the crash site of Flight 585:

Crash Site Flight 585 -Notice Scorched Earth

Flight 585 Debris

Flight 585 Debris

Does this look ANYTHING like the crash site at Flight 93???

Source: www.pulitzer.org

ValuJet Flight 592

Other people have claimed that the crash of ValuJet Flight 427 shows a similar crash site with no debris. This is because it crashed into water in the everglades. There was plenty of debris. Here are photos of the ValuJet Crash:

Crash Site -Where's The Plane??? Under Water!!

Here's the debris that was recovered:

Debris in Hanger

Debris in Hanger

Engine

Do these photos look ANYTHING like the crash site at Flight 93??

Sources: www.cnn.com www.cnn.com www.cnn.com www.ntsb.gov

Flight 427 Pittsburgh

Flight 427 is a well known crash because the rudder failed, causing the plane to nose-dive straight into the earth.

Flight 427 Crash Diagram

However, unlike Flight 93, Flight 427 left plenty of debris.

Flight 427 Debris

Flight 427 Debris

Flight 427 Engine

Again, compare these photos to the Flight 93 crash site:

Flight 93 "Crash" Site

Where is the debris from Flight 93? Why aren't there any scorch marks on the grass around the crater? If you look at the pile of dirt from the crater, the dirt isn't even scorched.

Now look at the photo that supposedly captured a black smoke plume from the crash of Flight 93:

Flight 93 Smoke Plume (source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

So how could a crash that created a 2000 foot wide smoke plume fail to leave a black mark on the dirt and grass at the crash site?? How can the ground at the crash site not be burnt??

Here's the challenge:

Can anybody provide a single photo of a plane that crashed onto land that didn't leave any sign of debris, and/or didn't scorch the surrounding earth??

(Water crashes don't count!)

Can anybody provide convincing evidence that the hole in the ground where Flight 93 is supposed to have crashed is actually the site of a plane crash?

Explain how the explosion strong enough to vaporize the entire plane failed to burn the grass 3 feet away from the explosion???

Where Are the Burn Marks???

I'm not sure this makes much sense to me. If the wings gouged the earth, and the engine buried itself in the dirt, then the jet fuel would have had to splatter everywhere between the hole and the woods. It couldn't very well pass over the ground between the hole and the woods because the wings apparently dug directly into the hole.

If the theory is the government is complicit somehow in 9/11, then evidence of the Flight 93 debris that the government produced, which was not independently verified, might not have much evidentiary value. That fact remains that there was NO visible debris at or around the crater, nor were there any burn marks near the crater. Except for planes that crashed into water, I've never seen any photos of another plane crash that didn't leave ANY debris or ANY burn marks near the crash site.

You can look at the photos near the hole in the ground. Here's a close-up that shows grass within *inches* of the crater not even slightly disturbed, let alone scorched by a giant fireball.

And you can tell this photo was taken within minutes of the impact because of the shadows, and because the only vehicle at the scene was the red firetruck.

Notice the edges around the hole:

Now, just as a reminder, here's what a *real* crash site looks like.

This is the wreckage of Flight 427, which also crashed nose-first, coincidentally, just outsite of Pittsburgh:

And here's how scorched the ground was when Flight 585 crashed nose-first near Denver:

And once again, here's the hole from "Flight 93"

Seriously, if the government didn't tell you that a plane crashed here, what would you think this looked like?

Were any parts of the "wreckage" ever positively identified through serial numbers as belonging to United Flight 93?

I will predict that this will be the first "seam" of the conspiracy that opens up. I also think that the focus has been intentionally directed towards the Pentagon and the WTCs just to divert attention away from Flight 93.

If you go to YouTube you'll find several aerial videos from apparently news crews. There seems to be something not consistent about the aerial veiws as compared to the ground views. For example, in the aerial views on 9/11, the trees don't seem as burnt as the ground views from 9/12. It's also interesting that the smoke is white, is mostly coming from the trees, and is still coming from the trees the next day.

It's also odd that witnesses from Indian Lake, including Val McClatchey, claim to have heard the plane fly overhead from the west of the crater. The official story is that Flight 93 came from the north.