Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, and this is the biggest 9/11 cover up of them all.

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by esdad71
..
The missle destroyed the engines of the plane (which the missle is designed to do)



Sorry to interrupt, but air to air missiles carry a blast fragmentation warhead, which is designed to ensure a large kill zone not the destruction of a particular target, being fitted with proximity fuzes and all. Fuel tanks are a very vulnerable to blast fragmentation, so unless your missle went straight into the engine and exploded right in the compressor belt (designed to keep disintegrating compressor blades from puncturing cabin and fuel tanks, but i really doubt it could handle anything resembling a warhead) mid air fire should have occured.


Actually, in a way you're both wrong, and you're both right. Did anyone see the pics of the DHL that was hit in Iraq by a shoulder fired missile? The engine kept running, and there was a small fire on the outboard wing section.





The missile tracks TOWARDS the greatest heat source, and when it sense that it's withing a certain range of an object detonates. It may or may not be near the greatest heat source when it happens.

The AIM-9L uses a bigger warhead than a shoulder fired SAM, but the basic workings are the same though. It tracks the greatest heat source, and when it reaches within 9 meters of an object it detonates.




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I congratulate all on this post. So much better than "aliens appeared to G.W. Bush and metally directed him to turn on all beam weapons in Area 51 to..." etc.

No expertise in crashes, though I was part of an emergency reclaimation crew who worked on a T2-B Buckeye crash site in mid-80's. While attached to Traron-Ten (VT-10), NAS Pensacola, Fl, two of our planes had a mid-air at about 10,000 ft over Alabama. One plane lost most of the vertical stab but still flew back (pilot got an air medal). The other plane went into a dive, crew ejected (pilot killed when wing tip-tank struck him in the head) and impacted in a soy-bean field.

There were fairly large pieces of the plane recovered some distance away that came off the planes when they collided. The remainder of the crashed plane basically disintgrated into a crater very much like the pictures shown of flight 93. The small J-85 engines were buried 10 to 15ft under the bottom of the crater. The wing spars were too. The rest was just small pieces 2-3 feet at largest. We gathered as many parts as could be found and did a very basic reconstruction on the floor of the transit hangar at Sherman Field (home of Blue Angels).

My point is, don't go expecting large pieces of structure at a nose-down crash site. Pictures shown of aircraft with tail structures "intact" happened with a nose-up attitude is my belief. Also that much wreckage can lie beneath the bottom of the crater. Any structural debris found miles from the site should indicate that they "fell" off prior to crashing but I'm not convinced of a shoot down because letters were found miles from the crater.

Again, good thread.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I remember exactly when this happened. The guy I was working with was talking to his cousin on the phone after the crash. His cousin stated the he and his wife definately saw a millitary plane shoot down the hijacked plane. To us it made sense to shoot it down and didn't think much of it. When the offficial story came out we kind of just looked at each other and said nothing else about it. Keep in mind his cousin told him that within an hour after the plane crashed. I was there when he was on the phone.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58


Actually, in a way you're both wrong, and you're both right. Did anyone see the pics of the DHL that was hit in Iraq by a shoulder fired missile? The engine kept running, and there was a small fire on the outboard wing section.

The AIM-9L uses a bigger warhead than a shoulder fired SAM, but the basic workings are the same though. It tracks the greatest heat source, and when it reaches within 9 meters of an object it detonates.



A small fire is still a fire, they were extremely lucky with that plane since airbus designed the craft without combat damage in mind, so iirc, all hydraulic control actuators failed, forcing the crew to land with trim and differential thrust. Ideally, a missle warhead should have a proximity fuse which activates as soon as the target is again increasing distance to the missile (maximum proximity), old AAA shells triggered anytime they got close enough, though, but that was before the era of microelectronics....(/ot)

Being hit in the wingtip is about as lucky is one can get though (misses excluded of course), the Concorde accident shows the other side of the spectrum of shrapnel damage to fuel tanks.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Oh of course. I'm not saying that it can't be catastrophic damage, because even on the wingtip it can easily be. Just that it's not necessarily going to blow the engine apart causing an immediate crash.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh of course. I'm not saying that it can't be catastrophic damage, because even on the wingtip it can easily be. Just that it's not necessarily going to blow the engine apart causing an immediate crash.


except when you are talking about pilots with zero boeing time. these guys had twin engine prop training....some of them had a couple hours in a boeing simulator. they were incapable of dealing with that kind of failure, and would most likely have immediately lost control. the guys that brought that airbus in after the missile strike were pros.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Great thread. Read it all.

I am still having problems with the three missing minutes. EMP shouldn't be able to take it out.. I can't verify this without specs though. Where along the line could/did this happen?

Kudos to your team for your dedication and carry on!



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here is an alleged case of NO black box OR voice recorder on a different crash site. AND there appears to be a pattern similar to Flt93 downing with regards to EMP. Jus' sayin'.

www.assassinationscience.com...

As a test of the scenario, what if the EMP was taken out of the equation? How then could the chain of events be reconciled? And could we go further by taking out the "missile" and/or 20mm cannons? I say this because EMP is in the mainstream as sensationalism in many cases. Here is a link that puts a different spin on EMP weapons...

www.soci.niu.edu...

A good (IMO) "what if" using Occam's Razor could be the terrorists upon seeing the passengers breach the cockpit detonated a small explosive blowing a hole in the forward passenger compartment or someone popped an emergency escape hatch causing debris to be sucked out of the fuseloge and into one of the engines. The engine breaks apart due principally to extra stress forces from the attempt to maintain control and at roughly the same time the military craft flys by. I admit there are many holes in this one also, but as an exercise in running different scenarios I think it can hold water.

Extra link for black boxes...

www.howstuffworks.com...

Notice that they are powered by the ENGINES- which one or both I know not.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Matyas]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Matyas]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The govrn members involved in covering up the taking down of a commerical plane would very enabled at hiding all details. The people on the plane "were " witnesses, but an now dead. I cannot think of a thorough manner in which all of the cell phone conversations could have any indications that a missile or bullets were involved. Yes, the people were locked in the back. No windows? Did everyone who charged turn off their phones? Weren't their some people that did not charge and stayed on the cell phone. Wouldn't they have said something "on the trip down".
Also, it sounds like 20mm bullets are large enough to have been found by some locals. Maybe, some day someone will come across a row of artifacts.
I can see Cheney tapping the cell conversations and deciding that "let's roll, but not without the rock" event would have been an opportune time to order having it taken down. Then again, that event and a clear crash site would have to by chance occured at the same time. Not a big coincidence, since the flight path was mostly unpopulated. 25 years from now, it will be unearthed.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If 911 was an inside job, then why did they shoot down flight 93? Was it part of the occultic sacrifice?

did all the people that boarded that plane actually die on it?

who shot it down?

why was it shot down where it crashed?


If the same purpetrators who orchestrated 9/11 did shoot down that airliner, then perhaps that was part of the plan as well. It could have been done as a way to take attention away from a possible 9/11 investigation by saying that they did in fact shoot down the last plane. America would be pissed that they actually lied about how the plane came down. The Media would be all over it for weeks on end. Then the american people would be told that it had to be done and it was within policy to shoot down that plane. When in fact it was just done for future use, to use as a distraction to what is really happening.

That is a possibility.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Excellent post

Some of the posts have suggested that the bang bang sound in the recorder is the sound of gunfire from the other air plane. This is false. The gun on an F-16 shoots at 100 rd/sec.

www.f-16.net...

It is impossible to audibly discern one round from the next at that rate. Also it would only take a couple of rounds from a gun like that to disable the engine. And because the target is big and slow the pilot could make his shots with precision and expend only a few rounds.

On the other hand if the rounds were of the exploding variety they would most likely blow chunks of the engine off the plane. I'm not sure the standard load these planes would be carrying.

Brian



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle_Rico
I remember exactly when this happened. The guy I was working with was talking to his cousin on the phone after the crash. His cousin stated the he and his wife definately saw a millitary plane shoot down the hijacked plane. To us it made sense to shoot it down and didn't think much of it. When the offficial story came out we kind of just looked at each other and said nothing else about it. Keep in mind his cousin told him that within an hour after the plane crashed. I was there when he was on the phone.



This post got buried, and I feel it deserves better. Im guessing you dont have any evidence of this, but would appreciate if you could expand on it some more.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Great thread. Read it all.

I am still having problems with the three missing minutes. EMP shouldn't be able to take it out.. I can't verify this without specs though. Where along the line could/did this happen?

Kudos to your team for your dedication and carry on!


EMP would kill the electronics. If the recorder isn't recording anymore then a gap would be evident in the recording.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

EMP would kill the electronics. If the recorder isn't recording anymore then a gap would be evident in the recording.


Yep, I would agree. Civilian electronics is not hardened, so it would fry. I suspect the data is hardened though, or would not respond the same way to an EMP burst. This is my speculation.

Personally, I would tend to run with the EMP theory as I know that new toys have always been a military favorite (recall the Vietnam goon squads). When we were in the Gulf games I heard one of the reasons for being there was to test all the new weapons systems we developed. And as an alternative energy enthusiast for a greater part of my life I have seen devices that the public will never see, and they weren't even classified! But there is a lunatic fringe that is associated with such claims, so it does damage to credibility in the public eye. Thus in my alternative scenario I was airing on the side of caution.

This board deals quite a bit with this area already, so I may be echoing what is common knowledge among my peers present.

Also I hear of a movie coming out JUST on Flt93. This is a very interesting development, because then we can study what explanation(s) are popularly acceptable. Of course it will be torn apart by the rest of us, rest assured...

As an additional thought, regarding the popping sounds, could an engine make them if it is malfunctioning? I am thinking of backfiring or a hole perhaps. Does anyone know the rotation speed or combustion rate of one of those? It must be very high, so it may be a subsystem associated with the engines. I can't imagine an engine falling off and not hearing anything.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Matyas]

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Matyas]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Here's what the Minneapolis Tribune reported on 9/11/2002, in a mini-profile of Steve O'Brien, the pilot of the magical C-130:


Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon."

O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."

He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect - a really bad day for airplanes."

He finally landed at the Youngstown, Ohio, airport. "For awhile there, almost every night, I found myself stone awake at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Took awhile to get over it."


Pretty lucky, wasn't it? Here are all these fighter jets being scrambled that morning, but none are able to reach any of the hijacked jets in time. And yet this one C-130 is at the scene of TWO crashes. What are the odds that its flight path would just coincidentally happen across two of the hijacked jets?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
His flight path didn't "coincidentally" happen across two crash sites. After taking off, the Dulles air traffic control warned him about a plane ahead of them, so he wouldn't fly into it, and ASKED THEM to follow it and try to determine where it was going. (Flight 77). Look at the flight path to where they were going. They were flying over Pennsylvania ANYWAY to get there and saw the big smoke cloud.

[edit on 4/6/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
So many times in recorded history have there been unexplained situations surounding events, most of the time we will never know the truth, for what ever the reasons, the powers that be have decided to hide or cover up the facts. I personally believe with out a doubt that the plane was shot down. I was in the Airforce, for many years and can easily see the order given to shoot down a hijacked plane, for security and public safety reasons.I know it sucks, but sometimes the needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few. Ask yourself, if you had to make the choice....what would you do. shoot down one plane? kill hundreds of lives or let it reach its target and kill possible hundreds or thousands more? WHAT WOULD YOU DO????



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
cyraxx,

I agree. I agree it would be the right thing to do. I don't agree with lying about it though.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I'm not understanding this at all. The whole argument (as reported in the Philly article I quoted back in the first pages of this thread) for the voice recorder tapes not being made public was because of Moussaoui's trial. Which is B.S. in the first place considering I'm sure no one on the recorder is waxing eloquent about Moussaoui in the last moments of their life. WHATEVER...now his trial is over and you could argue nothing about the sentencing trial should be a reason to keep this tape from the public. But even if you give them that one, they are now going to play the tape in the sentencing trial and then...


Prosecutors asked the judge to order the tape sealed and to keep the transcript from the general public after it is played in open court, but she did not immediately rule on that.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

There's no argument any more for not releasing this tape to the public, or at least releasing the transcripts...but the appropriate thing is to release both the tape and transcript...WITH TIMES.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   
It's POSSIBLE that some of the family members approached them about this and asked for it not to be released. Only one family was willing to let the 9/11 call of their son be played, out of 28 released.






top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join