Let's speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 23-6-2007 @ 03:28 AM by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
In my opinion Flight 93 DID indeed hit the ground. However there are numerous holes in the official stories as in ALL conspiracy theories. I honestly don't know what the heck to beleive. No theory adds up at all.

To a poster further up regarding melting steel - it ISN'T possible for jet-fuel fed fires to melt steel.

It doesn't matter if the steel melted or not. It doesn't have to. The fires that were in the WTC were enough to make the steel loose 50% of its strength.

What you said was NOT the official story and never has been.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Who said that first?

United Airlines did, and it was published in a news article after the fact. UA stated that it confirmed that Flight 93 had landed safely at Cleveland. Google "flight 93 cleveland" and you'll find the article.

Why were they even going into a NASA facility ?

Because it is government controlled, and was conveniently situated next to Cleveland, where Flight 93 allegedly landed.

Good point.

Wild side to side maneuvering puts strain on the engine mounts they're not designed to take. Engine mounts handle vertical stress very well (up to over 5Gs on a 747 I heard about) but they don't handle lateral stress well at all. Dutch rolls were enough to take off two engines on a KC-135, and cause serious damage to the other two engine mounts. We know flight 93 was doing some wild maneuvering to try to throw the passengers off their feet, and it went over to an inverted position at some point before crashing.

I completely agree, however, let's not forget
American Airlines Flight 587 and FedEx Flight 705. Both of which put large side loads on the engine pylons.


reply posted on 23-6-2007 @ 08:38 AM by Zaphod58
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
I completely agree, however, let's not forget
American Airlines Flight 587 and FedEx Flight 705. Both of which put large side loads on the engine pylons.


AA587 lost one or both engines before crashing. They have witness, and IIRC camera footage of them coming off. FedEx was damn lucky that they DIDN'T lose an engine.


reply posted on 23-6-2007 @ 08:53 AM by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
I completely agree, however, let's not forget
American Airlines Flight 587 and FedEx Flight 705. Both of which put large side loads on the engine pylons.


AA587 lost one or both engines before crashing. They have witness, and IIRC camera footage of them coming off. FedEx was damn lucky that they DIDN'T lose an engine.

The engines would of came off after the vertical stab snapped off... right?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags