Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

Interesting to note that a witness saw the plane doing what I would call evasive maneuvers. This would support the shoot down theory.One could say that fighting for the controls would result in this half-roll, but I think not due to my piloting experience.

reply to post by earthdude

Interesting to note that a witness saw the plane doing what I would call evasive maneuvers.

I believe these "evasive maneuvers" seen were the last-minute efforts, by the terrorist flying, to thwart the attempt by the passengers.

Just as normal turbulence, form natural phenomena, can cause objects to be tossed about inside the cabin, so can manipulating the controls in an extreme manner.

I can take you up, for instance, in any fixed-wing airplane and let you experience (briefly) 'Zero-G'. That is what they do, routinely, in NASA astronaut training...the famous "vomit comet" parabola method.

Conversely, using pitch control, I can pull two, three, four Gs --- up to the safe limit of the airframe. (Most modern passenger jets are rated to be safe up to 2.5 Gs).

Toss in some rudder, back and forth...and you can knock people off of their feet, if they are standing. If not belted, you can throw them out of their seats.

I would guess that anyone who has ever flown has experienced turbulence??

You may have thought it was "bad" at the time, but if you look up the FAA's definitions...you will be amazed.

Basic categories we use, for PIREPs (Pilot Reports) is ; 'Light', 'Moderate', 'Severe' and 'Extreme'.

In 'extreme' turbulence, in essence, the pilot has NO control. By definition. Hopefully, if encountered, it is brief --- and if you have reported it, then obviously you survived it....

reply to post by weedwhacker

I had not thought of that. One can see on the flight data recorder, assuming it was not doctored, that the plane was doing alot of up and down action for the last 10 minutes. It is hard it imagine a 10 minute battle for control with boxcutters.

What is most overlooked is the lack of cratering and of course and most importantly, the lack of any fire around the crater considering the 100's of gallons of jet fuel.

Ignorant people say " but look at the forest fires". What forest fires, I see broken trees from a concussion blast but no trees look to have any fire damage. The grass where the plane allegedly hit has unbroken, unburnt grass growing out of it.

Showing people fraudulent pictures that were released 6 years after the fact of a five foot piece of rusty fuselage doesn't support anything but more ignorance.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Yes, because everyone knows that when trees "break" they turn black and smoke. Common knowledge. Just go out to your own backyard, break a limb off a tree and it will immeadiately begin to turn black and smoke.

And no, I am not going to post the same picture that has been posted a million times. People can either choose to believe you or their lying eyes.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Yes, because everyone knows that when trees "break" they turn black and smoke. Common knowledge. Just go out to your own backyard, break a limb off a tree and it will immeadiately begin to turn black and smoke.

And no, I am not going to post the same picture that has been posted a million times. People can either choose to believe you or their lying eyes.

Care to show me burnt, blackened trees? Care to show me evidence (up close images) of a forest fire?

You are taking too long, another failure in your part to prove a overly debunked point.

As you can see that the trees hardly suffered damage consistent with 1000's of gallons of jet fuel or fire. They were damaged due to the concussive blast but not from a crashing Boeing 757, the lack of cratering, wings, fuel, and fire to the surrounding has been conclusive in proving this years ago that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 did not crash here. Thanks for coming out.

Here is a question, if there were thousands of gallons of fuel on the plane when it allegedly crashed, where did it go? why didnt it ignite the dry long grass? how did it ( in your words) burn a couple of trees without burning the grass between it? Why was there only one fire truck will a little hose?



[edit on 28-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Thank you for posting the photos of the blackened smoking trees, like I said people could believe you or thier lying eyes.

Keep digging that hole of incredulity.

Unlike you, everybody else understands the chaotic and unpredicatable nature of fire and explosions.

Keep trying though, this is fun.

Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for posting the photos of the blackened smoking trees, like I said people could believe you or thier lying eyes.

Oh so now you are a fire expert? What fire school did you go to and name the fires you have been to and fought?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for posting the photos of the blackened smoking trees, like I said people could believe you or thier lying eyes.

Oh so now you are a fire expert? What fire school did you go to and name the fires you have been to and fought?

Uh huh, yeah. You need to be a "fire expert" to know that wood turns black when it is burnt. Or know that there is a relationship between fire and smoke. Or know that fire is always predictable as to where it burns or how it spreads.

These are areas of knowledge that you gain being a rational adult in the real world. I don't need a degree in fire technology to know that fire burns and that this is full of c***.

Originally posted by mike lee
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

This was a theory that I heard of but didn't believe. My own opinion is that it was shot down. But via your hard work here on this thread it prompted me to do some more digging. Which I will....Nice work!!
S & F for your thread.

grammer

[edit on 19-1-2010 by mike lee]

Only one thing! the Jet would not be flying more than 30,000 ft in fact much less imo, so its Flying over a densely Populated area an then its shot down! give me a break, first there would be a very loud bang, then the engine's would Scream as they a long with Bodies, Seats an all the huge bits an pisces that make up the size of the shot down Jet! now yea think somebody might of noticed all this raining down from the Sky, most of it on Fire over a large area? do you remember the Jet coming down over Scotland a few years back? granted it was a bigger Jet! but they were still finding Body's an wreckage weeks later! come on man use your common sense





[edit on 1-3-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

Originally posted by hooper
Uh huh, yeah. You need to be a "fire expert" to know that wood turns black when it is burnt.

But as usual you have no proof of this is what happened at Shankesville, its only your opinion.

Or know that there is a relationship between fire and smoke.

Well then you should know about the releationship between smoke and what kind of fire, like if its oxygen starved.

These are areas of knowledge that you gain being a rational adult in the real world.

Too bad you are living in a fantasy world and cannot show evidnece to support what you post and cannot be adult enough to accept and admit when evidence is shown.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Uh huh, yeah. You need to be a "fire expert" to know that wood turns black when it is burnt.

But as usual you have no proof of this is what happened at Shankesville, its only your opinion.

Or know that there is a relationship between fire and smoke.

Well then you should know about the releationship between smoke and what kind of fire, like if its oxygen starved.

These are areas of knowledge that you gain being a rational adult in the real world.

Too bad you are living in a fantasy world and cannot show evidnece to support what you post and cannot be adult enough to accept and admit when evidence is shown.

And what evdence do you have apart from a little hole in a field.
This is what it should look like when a jet hits the ground..
Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London's Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.
Eleven people in Lockerbie, southern Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the event has been named by the media as the Lockerbie Bombing

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
And what evdence do you have apart from a little hole in a field.

I believe the site at Shankesville looks more like a shoot down.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


This belief is based on...?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
And what evidence do you have apart from a little hole in a field.

I believe the site at Shanksville looks more like a shoot down.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Did You look at the 2 vids yet? what about the size of the hole? an the devastation all around! there wasn't hardy a tree scorched at Shanksville
now how do yea suppose that! whats it like seeing the world with your eyes! ?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
And what evdence do you have apart from a little hole in a field.

I believe the site at Shankesville looks more like a shoot down.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

So then you believe that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, correct?

I assume then that you have all the matching serial numbers you required, the chain of custody forms, all filled out properly, you've double checked the DNA sequencing, the condition of the plane wreckage, etc.

Glad we got that settled, REMISNE stipulates that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville, Pa.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
whats it like seeing the world with your eyes! ?

Well my world is reallity.

I do research, file FOIA requests and send e-mails to find the truth of what happened that day.

What have you done to find the truth?

Originally posted by hooper

So then you believe that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, correct?

We do not know what really happened since most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

Anyone who says they know what happened is being very dishonest or living in a fantasy world.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper

So then you believe that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, correct?

We do not know what really happened since most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

Anyone who says they know what happened is being very dishonest or living in a fantasy world.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by REMISNE]

No wait, this is a new twist. You think that Flight 93 was shot down but didn't crash, or it was shot down but didn't crash in Shanksville? And what would be the purpose of shooting down a jet, killing all on board, covering up the actual crash site and the faking another crash site?