https://jaimee911.weebly.com/flight-93---a-hoax.html
FLIGHT 93 - A HOAX?
While there was three successful terrorist attacks on September 11, there was also one unsuccessful attack - United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into a rural field in Pennsylvania before it reached it target. However, there is a lot of speculation about whether or not this was a real crash or if it was actually a hoax. There is a lot of conclusive evidence that would help to prove this theory such as the fact the damage at the scene is not severe enough to be caused by a crash as extreme as the alleged Flight 93 crashing into a field, as well as the interesting information about the debris, and lack of debris, at the scene. One of the most major points that brings back suspicions that the whole attack being a hoax is reports of the same aircraft being in the air in another vicinity, after the supposed crash was reported.
Wallace Miller was the coroner at the scene of the crash, and he found it "eerie" that there was not a single drop of blood to be seen. There was also no independent source that identified clear remains of any of the passengers. This is extremely hard to comprehend, as the crash site was a clear, open field. When the planes crashed into the north and south towers of the World Trade Centre, remains of the victims were found and identified, even among all of the debris from two collapsed buildings and the damage around it. Only eight percent of the remains were found, and although the plane did crash in an extreme way, it is still strange that there was no sign of blood or a large amount of evidence of them. As well as this, because of their extremely fragmented state, there was no way of telling if the passengers were already dead before the plane hit the ground and they were killed by the hijackers while the plane was in the air, or if their cause of death was indeed from the impact of the crash.
The damage at the scene is not consistent with the aircraft. The hole was too small to be caused by a Boeing 757. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124ft, yet the hole at the scene was only 30-40ft in length and 20ft in depth. How can an aircraft so large cause a hole so small? The only explanation is that it was not a Boeing 757 that made the hole. As well as this, there was little to no fire damage at the scene of the crash. When the planes crashed into the Twin Towers, they caused fires which caused the whole building to collapse, yet in a field with dry grass, there was only a small amount of scorching. The fires in New York spread to buildings that weren't even within a very close proximity, yet a plane crashes head first into a field and the surrounding areas are completely untouched. This seems highly suspicious and brings about the theory of it being completely staged or fake.
Not only was the hole inconsistent with the size of the plane, but the debris was too. The crash scene shows that the plane was basically swallowed up entirely by the ground with a little amount of debris at the scene. However, debris from the plane was located many miles from the crash site. A section of the engine weight one ton was found 2,000 yards away, and other pieces of debris were located as far away as 8 miles from the scene in New Baltimore. There were a lot of wreckage found around 3-6 miles from the actual crash site. It does not make sense that a plane crashing head first into a hole that basically swallowed it up does not cause a lot of debris at the scene, but some is found miles away. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the plane crashed into the field as a result of hijackers. If there was debris miles away, it may be possible the plane was shot down while it was in mid-air which caused it to crash into the field; this would make a lot more sense than passengers revolting and causing the plane to crash.
One thing that brings about a lot of suspicion of Flight 93 being staged was the fact there were reports of the same plane being flown, after the reports of the plane crashing into the field were filed. The transponder on Flight 93 was recognized by Air Traffic Control as being airborne as the aircraft submitted a signal after the time of the alleged crash. There is further confirmation that the plane was in the air after the crash as the longitude and latitude given out to Air Traffic Control via radar were located past the alleged crash site at Shanksville. It would be impossible for the Air Traffic Control Centre to receive an altitude or transponder signal if the plane had crashed when and where reports said it did. Not only was it reported in the air shortly after the reported crash time, but there are several news reports of the same flight landing in Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Mayor Michael R. White said there was a Boeing 767 out of Boston that had made an emergency landed because there were concerns there could have been a bomb on board.
The fact there are inconsistencies in the 9/11 commission's official story in regards to Flight 93 brings about the fact it was all a hoax. The damage at the scene such as remains, debris and the hole size and the fact the same plane was reported flying and landing after the alleged crash makes it possible that the plane was either shot down or bombed in mid air and the debris then fell. This would explain why debris was found miles from the crash site and the hole was not consistent enough to have been caused from impact of a plane diving straight into it. This would also explain how it was hard to find remains of any passengers or any sign of blood - they were killed before they hit the ground. There is a possible theory that the plane did not crash at all and landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, however the theory of the plane being shot down is a lot more likely.
9/11/01 Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville
Looking at that video, it suggests to me something falling from the sky did make that hole.
There is smoke coming out of the hole, which could be staged, but the tree in the background is also smoking, not only that, there looks to be an impact and the limb of the tree have been sheared off. The interesting thing, if that is the case, it doesn't appear to be anywhere visible on the ground.