Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

I believe that flt 93 was shot down but I doubt that the F16's used sidewinders to do it. I think they would have used something with a little more punch to them.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Mod Edit - trimmed large quote

Good point, i guess all possibilities, however seeing there were witness thfrom shanksvill who saw the plane crash and never claim to see a missle hit it I think the OP theory is wrong. You take one vietnam vet who say he heard a missle and take that as truth, however you think the other 20 or so people are liars. Like the guy who saw the plane flight straight towards the ground or the other saying the plane was flying upside down.
www.flight93crash.com... So two people think it was shot down out of all those witnesses.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10-7-2008 by elevatedone]

Please refrain from quoting large posts when replying.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



You can always use the "reply to" button instead of quote.


Also, please remain civil in your discussion. Pointless name calling and ridicule will get us no where.

Thanks,

[


Good point, i guess all possibilities, however seeing there were witness thfrom shanksvill who saw the plane crash and never claim to see a missle hit it I think the OP theory is wrong. You take one vietnam vet who say he heard a missle and take that as truth, however you think the other 20 or so people are liars. Like the guy who saw the plane flight straight towards the ground or the other saying the plane was flying upside down.
www.flight93crash.com... So two people think it was shot down out of all those witnesses.

As I said, I am not necessarily agreeing with the O.P., but the minute people start threatening legal action over something that has nothing to do with them directly, it makes me wonder.

Something curious though. According to the few pilots I know(and I am but no means an expert), a passenger jet of that size could not fly upside down. From what I have been told, a maneuver like that with a jet that size would cause it to go into a direct nose-dive.
So if that were the case, why was the debris spread so far? If the jet was in a full on nose dive, wouldn't the majority of the impact been pressurized right there, with debris mainly concentrated to a fairly small area?

I could be wrong, but again, it doesn't add up.

I've seen a DC10 flying upside down for several miles over the california desert. they can fly upside down. it's just not a good idea with passengers or anything loose on board.

Just about any plane can fly upside down. even some copters.

The debris that was spread over such a large area was the really light debris though. Papers, insulation, etc. As for it going upside down, yes it usually does cause an immediate crash at low altitude. But large planes are much more manueverable than people realize. One of the main selling points of the Boeing 707 when it first came out was that the lead test pilot did a barrel roll in it as he was flying past a boating event. With enough altitude they MAY have been able to recover, but flying as low as they were, there was no chance to recover.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That's really awesome that we allowed an F-16 to transport a civilian to New York during the worst terrorist attack the United States has ever suffered, whilst 98% of the rest of our Air Force fighters were participating in training exercises elsewhere.

Had I been a CO in the AF, I'd had scrambled that fighter, civilian or not to shoot down a terrorist hi-jacked passenger jet. But, then again ... I guess that's why I'm not in the military; never been too good at following ridiculous order, such as "Stand Down" while terrorist attack innocent civilians.

EDIT: to clarify that the comment above isn't necessarily directed at Zaphod58 ... I was just making reference to the information he provided.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by tyranny22]

Do you know how long it takes to arm a fighter from a cold start? By the time you break out weapons, get them to the planes, get them up, get the planes ready to go, you could be looking at over 2 hours for a full load out. Even if you get the first ones airborne quicker than that, by the time they could have launched, gotten to the area, and started looking for the planes, it was all over.

And it was hardly 98% of our fighters participating in the exercises. Most of the exercises that day were command post exercises, meaning no actual aircraft were involved and flying. The ones that WERE flying still would have been looking at a pretty good bit of time to get ready to get airborne. They would have had to have been fueled, armed, and then need almost an hour to align navigation systems with engines running.

reply to post by tide88


The plane was shoot down because the hi-jackers lost control of the plane.
The plane could not be allowed to land with the living hi-jackers aboard.

FLight 93 was a cruise missile or non exsitant.

There was no shootdown as the crater lacks any debris.

No plane crashed in SHanksville on 911.

Notcie how on the other flight 93 threads the debunkers get debunked and failed to prove a plane crashed in Shanksville then straw men threads come up like this one.

The military was in the air over Pennsylvania conducting cruise missile intercepts, mock live fly hijackings. The Johnstown terror team practiced and were practicing this sort of thing in the weeks leading up to and on 911.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by IvanZana]

dble post


[edit on 10-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by Zaphod58


But, you said he was already flying:

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except for the fact that he was flying TO New York, in a two seat F-16, with a civilian in the back seat, AT THE EXACT SAME TIME that he was supposedly shooting down Flight 93.

I would have pulled any available aircraft that was in the vicinity, armed or not, to at least trail the hi-jacked aircraft. And would have began scrambling others that were on the ground.

Which, I'm sure, is what happened at many bases.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

So IF he shot it down, that would prove there was no conspiracy, that the government infact did not crash planes into the pentagon and world trade center, right?

No, it would mean what I've thought all along;
UA 93 was shot down by mistake -- or more likely, because the people on board had taken back control of it and there were some inconvenient people onboard who might be able to answer some questions.


Like everything surrounding 9-11. There is a lot of curious coincidence and speculation. I don't know what to think about this new information. I always suspected that if there were an F-16 shoot-down, it would be someone just following orders. The False Flag even involved a lot of people who had no idea they were taking part in something else. But the nature of the crash -- of a claim that the plane went straight down, and then finding debris like the engine 8 miles away.... doesn't make sense.

A struggling plane isn't going to fall apart in the sky from people fighting over the controls. So if the debris is spread out -- it blew apart in mid air from some other reason. Perhaps later, someone set off a charge to make people think it slammed into the ground -- I don't really have a clue on that, since no reputable organizations were involved in the crime scenes.

I dont think the plane was shot down because there is no evidence to support it let alone evidence from the crash site to even say a plane crashed at all.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by tyranny22


Even if he had been able to FIND it, all he could have done was to trail it until it hit the Pentagon. As I said, you could be looking at as long as two hours to get fighters armed, and airborne. By the time they got to the area, and started looking for their target, it would have been all over.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Planes maneuvering in certain ways WILL break apart in flight from them fighting over the controls. A good example of them coming apart from maneuvering is a KC-135E in Desert Storm. It got caught in wake turbulence from another tanker, and began to roll side to side. It wasn't a particularly violent roll, but afterwards they had fire warning lights on the two left side engines. They shut them down and sent the boom operator back to the boom pod to check if they were on fire. When he got back there both engines were gone completely. The other two engines had suffered cracks to the mounts.

Engine mounts are stressed for VERTICAL stresses, such as the wing lifting upward. It doesn't take much horizontal stress to cause the mounts to fail. From reports flight 77 was rolling side to side to try to throw the passengers off their feet. If they maneuvered hard enough this could have caused an engine mount to shear.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

Doesnt make sense. Impossible.




There was no shootdown for there was NO flight 93.

As you can see no plane crashed in SHanksville.

The shootdown theory was started by letsrroll , the same people who brought you missile pods on flight 175, fueltankers, lasers, etc. They have also been linked to popular mechanics debunking 911.

Dont let this shoot down theory take away from the fact that no plane crashed in SHanksville.

There was an exercise called Amalgam Virgo over pennsylvania on 911 that had mock live fly hijackings and cruise missile intercepts.

What caused the crater at Shanksville was a bomb drop or missile as part of the exercises.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Only one problem with your theory there Ivan. Amalgam Virgo was held in JUNE 2001, at Tyndal AFB in Florida, and involved the use of drones, not real cruise missiles, or real bombs.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58


Mabey so.

But there is no plane that crashed in Shanksville on 911.

THe shootdown theory is a strawman argument created by letsroll 5 months before the popular mechanics article. popular mechanics will not touch the fact that no plane crashed in SHansville but gleefully shot down the shootdown theory.

See how disinfo and strawman tactics work:?

Originally posted by IvanZana
FLight 93 was a cruise missile or non exsitant.

There was no shootdown as the crater lacks any debris.

No plane crashed in SHanksville on 911.

You're right that there was no debris near the crater, but unlike whatever hit the Pentagon, I'm sure that Flight 93 actually existed and was shot down by an F-16. The wreckage was spread over four miles, including large pieces such as it's engines that were found "a considerable distance from the crash site", according to the FBI. Makes sense, because that's exactly what a heat-seeking Sidewinder missile would target.

Many residents of Shanksville and nearby communities saw and heard Flight 93 fly overhead. Some residents, including Vietnam vets, also heard air-to-air missiles and are convinced it was shot down. Others had state law enforcement contacts, who confirmed their suspicions.

reply to post by IvanZana


I thought you knew about the 'wing slit' in the crater existing before the crash in sat photos (a mine of some sort IIRC).. so why even angle the plane to fit it