It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires
page: 2share:
even if it was 18 feet deep, dont you think thats a bit shallow?
reply to post by hooper
No need to get so hostile, hooper. You don't have to go on the attack because he might have his numbers mixed up slightly.
But nobody has answered by original question: What would be the benefit of not crashing the airplane at Shanksville, but instead faking a crash site at that area?
No need to get so hostile, hooper. You don't have to go on the attack because he might have his numbers mixed up slightly.
But nobody has answered by original question: What would be the benefit of not crashing the airplane at Shanksville, but instead faking a crash site at that area?
Originally posted by danbirmingham
even if it was 18 feet deep, dont you think thats a bit shallow?
I am not making up these numbers.
The Dayton Daily News of September 12, 2001, described the scene:
The impact of the crash left a crater estimated by authorities to be about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. It appeared the plane first hit on the downward slope of a hillside [/ex
Nena Lensbouer, who had prepared lunch for the workers at the scrap yard overlooking the crash site, said she was the first person to reach the crater. Lensbouer said that the crater was five to six feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard. She described the sound as "an explosion, like an atomic bomb" -- not a crash.
Capt. Frank Monaco:
“The gouge was 8 to 10 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet long, said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police. “
(AP, 9/12/01 )
www.courier-journal.com...
FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said the recorder was found at about 4:20 p.m. in the 8-foot-deep crater caused by the crash.
WPXI11 Pittsburgh
The plane left a crater 20 feet wide and 15 feet deep.
(Plain Dealer, 9/12/01)
Reporters said the crater was about 40 feet wide and more than 8 feet deep.
(Los Angeles Times, 9/12/01)
The impact of the crash left a crater estimated by authorities to be about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide.
(Cox, 9/12/01)
[I]“Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV reporter Michelle Wright toured the crash scene and said that a crater of about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep was created by the crash.”
www.newsnet5.com...
There are no wing scars. Not one person who was there ever described where the wings hit or that anything hit the ground outside of the 20-30 foot wide crater. If it were a Boeing 757 the crater would of been called a trench. The crater is much too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.
The impact of the crash left a crater estimated by authorities to be about 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide. (Cox, 9/12/01)edit on 5-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
Its round, 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep.
What about the reporter that said it was 18 feet deep? Is she lying? Why are you accusing her of lying?
At this point it's a given that to the truthers, EVERYONE who is sayign things they don't want to believe are lying and are really secret government agents. I keep posting the eyewitness testimony of Terry Butler, a guy who was collecting parts at a nearby junkyard who specifically saw a plane flying low to the ground before making a right turn and went straight down. He then felt the Earth shake and heard a huge explosion about a mile away. To a man the truthers accuse him of being "in on the conspiracy".
So, who's the next person to call Mr. Butler a secret gov't disinformation agent in this thread? Any takers?
reply to post by TupacShakur
Actually its just the same accusation that I need to answer whenever I advise the poster in question that there is no "official" dimension for the crater and ergo his whole argument about crater size is, at best, moot.
None. That's why the whole concept is nonsensical. If you have no regard for human life, unlimited abilities and resources, why not just actually crash the plane? Its almost like arguing that they are conducting a cover up for the sake of conducting a cover up.
No need to get so hostile, hooper. You don't have to go on the attack because he might have his numbers mixed up slightly.
Actually its just the same accusation that I need to answer whenever I advise the poster in question that there is no "official" dimension for the crater and ergo his whole argument about crater size is, at best, moot.
But nobody has answered by original question: What would be the benefit of not crashing the airplane at Shanksville, but instead faking a crash site at that area?
None. That's why the whole concept is nonsensical. If you have no regard for human life, unlimited abilities and resources, why not just actually crash the plane? Its almost like arguing that they are conducting a cover up for the sake of conducting a cover up.
reply to post by GoodOlDave
if it was flying low to the ground and then turned down, would it really disappear into the ground as this plane supposedly did??
I would have thought no..Not enough vertical velocity..
I keep posting the eyewitness testimony of Terry Butler, a guy who was collecting parts at a nearby junkyard who specifically saw a plane flying low to the ground before making a right turn and went straight down. He then felt the Earth shake and heard a huge explosion about a mile away. To a man the truthers accuse him of being "in on the conspiracy".
if it was flying low to the ground and then turned down, would it really disappear into the ground as this plane supposedly did??
I would have thought no..Not enough vertical velocity..
reply to post by backinblack
Another excellent question, Back. How could a plane flying a few hundred feet off the ground, attain enough velocity to destroy itself so completely, that only a 'bucketful' was recovered. This is getting sillier by the day. It's got to be tough for these 'guys', each day waking up, looking at themselves in the mirror, knowing what's in store for them when they log on. I almost felt sorry for them, but it passed. Rot in hell, traitors.
Another excellent question, Back. How could a plane flying a few hundred feet off the ground, attain enough velocity to destroy itself so completely, that only a 'bucketful' was recovered. This is getting sillier by the day. It's got to be tough for these 'guys', each day waking up, looking at themselves in the mirror, knowing what's in store for them when they log on. I almost felt sorry for them, but it passed. Rot in hell, traitors.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
I keep posting the eyewitness testimony of Terry Butler, a guy who was collecting parts at a nearby junkyard who specifically saw a plane flying low to the ground before making a right turn and went straight down. He then felt the Earth shake and heard a huge explosion about a mile away. To a man the truthers accuse him of being "in on the conspiracy".
if it was flying low to the ground and then turned down, would it really disappear into the ground as this plane supposedly did??
I would have thought no..Not enough vertical velocity..
Exactly. There was a worker that was working at Rollock Scrap yard which has a scrap yard about 300 yards from the crater site.
Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said. "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker. The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said.
So 40 feet above him 300 yards away. This was the only guy to see the plane go down. He has said the plane was upright and then said it was inverted. He just left the military and decided to work at a scrap yard. 2nd day on job. Source
Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."
But wait !!!! He said "He was working at the Rollock scrap metal company, standing on a bluff overlooking a ... so close that the bottom of the plane seemed a tan color as it reflected the fields below. ..." How can he see the bottom of the plane reflecting the fields below if the official story is that the plane was coming in upside down and at a 45 degree angle???
edit on 5-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no
reason given)
Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head. "It came
right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but
hardly made any sound. "Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the
trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.
edit on 5-10-2011 by
Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Shadow Herder
No he didn't. Read your own sources.
So 40 feet above him 300 yards away. This was the only guy to see the plane go down. He has said the plane was upright and then said it was inverted. He just left the military and decided to work at a scrap yard. 2nd day on job.
No he didn't. Read your own sources.
reply to post by backinblack
And exactly what constitutes "as it supposedly did"? What do you mean disappear?
Why would you think that? What do you know about the compistion on the ground at the point of impact? What kind of vertical velocity would be required to accomplish what you think happened and why?
What I am hearing is basically "I don't have any idea what happened, but I know its wrong".
if it was flying low to the ground and then turned down, would it really disappear into the ground as this plane supposedly did??
And exactly what constitutes "as it supposedly did"? What do you mean disappear?
I would have thought no..Not enough vertical velocity..
Why would you think that? What do you know about the compistion on the ground at the point of impact? What kind of vertical velocity would be required to accomplish what you think happened and why?
What I am hearing is basically "I don't have any idea what happened, but I know its wrong".
reply to post by plube
Yes indeed, these sorts of comparisons are raised often, and are invalid due to the specific circumstances of 9/11:
Yes, and we also know it as fact. United 93's late departure from Newark resulted in it being well behind the "schedule" of the other three, in terms of the hijackers' original plan of nearly simultaneous crashes intended to come in quick enough succession to take advantage of the reaction time by the US military. Recall that those four flights were chosen because they all had originally scheduled departures within minutes of each other, from the three respective airports.
Because of that delay, the passengers and cabin crew of UAL 93 were able to understand that their hijacking incident was not an isolated case, but part of a large co-ordinated plot. Without the technology of the on-board "AirFones" that were installed in the seat-backs, no one would have had any way (at first) to realize that they were involved in anything more than a single hijacking event. But, because of the delay, this was evident to them from their phone conversations with people at home on the ground who were watching events unfold in NYC.
Keep in mind, despite the many misconceptions intended to ridicule what has been derisively termed the "official story", the initial telephone contacts were made via "AirFone". The (few) actual successfully connected cell phone calls that were made occurred when the airplane was down well below normal cruise altitudes for airliners. UAL 93 was brought down to an altitude of 5,000 MSL for quite some time
The hijackers likely figured that they'd be harder to find, by the military (they knew they were late, you realize?), down lower. Since, with no transponder squawking any altitude information, even an interceptor that was vectored to UAL 93's position as seen by ATC radar would then have to expend time to search for what altitude it was at, the interceptor pilot would have to use his on-board radar and eyes to hunt, in order to acquire the airliner, and that would take extra time when you don't know the actual altitude.
So, at 5,000 MSL they were only 2,500 to 3,000 AGL (Above Ground Level) due to the elevation of the land in that area. Cell phones would, therefore, be more likely to work, especially since some cell towers were on higher hills in the vicinity.
Yes we do, actually. It is very, very clear from the Flight Data Recorder information. It is irrefutable, and extremely obvious when you watch the video animation made from that data, with all the control movements and airplane reactions, it was hand-flown via the control wheels, by the person flying the airplane. Unmistakable to any pilot who watches it.
Specifically, the passengers never managed to breach the cockpit door. They would have, if the hijackers hadn't taken what little "revenge" option they had left, which was abandoning their original target, but "martydom" (in their minds) nonetheless.
Because of the sorts of forensic investigations (relying on the intact FDR) that are used in other airplane crashes.
Now, you refer to both TWA 800 and PanAm 103. They (like virtually all other accident investigations) were undertaken to that extent because the actual specific cause of the crash was unknown! That simple, is the difference between the four hijackings, and the accidents.
The only two of the four that had recoverable Flight Recorders were AAL 77 and UAL 93, and those were examined extensively, all to piece together the chain of events to the greatest extent possible. Lacking the FDRs or CVRs from AAL 11 and UAL 175 hampered the ability to get exact data, so other sources(such as radar tracking info, the few ATC recordings, etc) were used to fill in the gaps.
Not sure if that is a correct impression or assessment.
Yes indeed, these sorts of comparisons are raised often, and are invalid due to the specific circumstances of 9/11:
...we have been told hijackers took the plane...
Yes, and we also know it as fact. United 93's late departure from Newark resulted in it being well behind the "schedule" of the other three, in terms of the hijackers' original plan of nearly simultaneous crashes intended to come in quick enough succession to take advantage of the reaction time by the US military. Recall that those four flights were chosen because they all had originally scheduled departures within minutes of each other, from the three respective airports.
Because of that delay, the passengers and cabin crew of UAL 93 were able to understand that their hijacking incident was not an isolated case, but part of a large co-ordinated plot. Without the technology of the on-board "AirFones" that were installed in the seat-backs, no one would have had any way (at first) to realize that they were involved in anything more than a single hijacking event. But, because of the delay, this was evident to them from their phone conversations with people at home on the ground who were watching events unfold in NYC.
Keep in mind, despite the many misconceptions intended to ridicule what has been derisively termed the "official story", the initial telephone contacts were made via "AirFone". The (few) actual successfully connected cell phone calls that were made occurred when the airplane was down well below normal cruise altitudes for airliners. UAL 93 was brought down to an altitude of 5,000 MSL for quite some time
The hijackers likely figured that they'd be harder to find, by the military (they knew they were late, you realize?), down lower. Since, with no transponder squawking any altitude information, even an interceptor that was vectored to UAL 93's position as seen by ATC radar would then have to expend time to search for what altitude it was at, the interceptor pilot would have to use his on-board radar and eyes to hunt, in order to acquire the airliner, and that would take extra time when you don't know the actual altitude.
So, at 5,000 MSL they were only 2,500 to 3,000 AGL (Above Ground Level) due to the elevation of the land in that area. Cell phones would, therefore, be more likely to work, especially since some cell towers were on higher hills in the vicinity.
...nbut we don't know the reason for the impact...
Yes we do, actually. It is very, very clear from the Flight Data Recorder information. It is irrefutable, and extremely obvious when you watch the video animation made from that data, with all the control movements and airplane reactions, it was hand-flown via the control wheels, by the person flying the airplane. Unmistakable to any pilot who watches it.
...and if you believe the movie...it was during a scuffle on the plane if i am not mistaken.
Specifically, the passengers never managed to breach the cockpit door. They would have, if the hijackers hadn't taken what little "revenge" option they had left, which was abandoning their original target, but "martydom" (in their minds) nonetheless.
....we apparently do not have eye witnesses that say exactly how the plane came down....we are told that it came down in a certain way.
Because of the sorts of forensic investigations (relying on the intact FDR) that are used in other airplane crashes.
...it is strnage there no pictures of the plane in a hanger that has been laid out like in so many other aircrash investigations.
Now, you refer to both TWA 800 and PanAm 103. They (like virtually all other accident investigations) were undertaken to that extent because the actual specific cause of the crash was unknown! That simple, is the difference between the four hijackings, and the accidents.
The only two of the four that had recoverable Flight Recorders were AAL 77 and UAL 93, and those were examined extensively, all to piece together the chain of events to the greatest extent possible. Lacking the FDRs or CVRs from AAL 11 and UAL 175 hampered the ability to get exact data, so other sources(such as radar tracking info, the few ATC recordings, etc) were used to fill in the gaps.
.....just seems like sloppy investigations into one of the most serious acts of terrorism.
Not sure if that is a correct impression or assessment.
reply to post by ProudBird
It's obvious by your ats 'birthdate' that you're one of the re-inforcements. I hope you have something new to offer, because everything you've offered here is pure speculation. You can't know what happened aboard that plane anymore than I do, and I know nothing. What I do know, is there was no airplane in that hole in Shanksville, and that's the fact, Jack.
It's obvious by your ats 'birthdate' that you're one of the re-inforcements. I hope you have something new to offer, because everything you've offered here is pure speculation. You can't know what happened aboard that plane anymore than I do, and I know nothing. What I do know, is there was no airplane in that hole in Shanksville, and that's the fact, Jack.
reply to post by dillweed
Yep, you're right - no airplane - just the remains of an airplane. Just like there were no "bodies".
What I do know, is there was no airplane in that hole in Shanksville, and that's the fact, Jack.
Yep, you're right - no airplane - just the remains of an airplane. Just like there were no "bodies".
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by ProudBird
It's obvious by your ats 'birthdate' that you're one of the re-inforcements. I hope you have something new to offer, because everything you've offered here is pure speculation. You can't know what happened aboard that plane anymore than I do, and I know nothing. What I do know, is there was no airplane in that hole in Shanksville, and that's the fact, Jack.
Seriously, stop doing this.
Just because someone joins and doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you can belittle them based on when they joined. I don't see you complaining when newbies show up constantly and defend the conspiracy with minimal posts saying "I KNOW it was demolitions," and then receiving 10 or more stars. Most of these people have only seen Loose Change or some other nonsense.
This video contains the BlackBox data.
Watch the AdHom attacks now trollers.
on given)
Watch the AdHom attacks now trollers.
on given)
edit on 5-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
The crater was created upon and older trench or ditch as you can see in this next
image.
The photographer is standing in what is oftenly confused to be caused by wings. As you can they arent. Therefore the crater in Shanksville is too small to have been caused by a fully fueled commercial airliner.
The photographer is standing in what is oftenly confused to be caused by wings. As you can they arent. Therefore the crater in Shanksville is too small to have been caused by a fully fueled commercial airliner.
reply to post by hooper
Yeah the part I doubt about the official Shanksville story is that the passengers took matters into their own hands and heroically attempted to take back the plane before it crashed. That just sounds like some patriotic bravado to me. I think that the military shot it down because they heard that two hijacked planes just crashed into the Twin Towers, and they decided "It's either shoot down the plane now and save lives on the ground, or let the plane crash into a building and the people on board will die anyway as well as people on the ground".
I could see why that would be kept quiet, because even if it was done with the good intention of saving lives, people would be outraged that our military would kill it's own citizens. So in that sense I think there was a cover-up. But what I can't fathom is why they would go to the trouble of faking a plane crash site.
Yeah the part I doubt about the official Shanksville story is that the passengers took matters into their own hands and heroically attempted to take back the plane before it crashed. That just sounds like some patriotic bravado to me. I think that the military shot it down because they heard that two hijacked planes just crashed into the Twin Towers, and they decided "It's either shoot down the plane now and save lives on the ground, or let the plane crash into a building and the people on board will die anyway as well as people on the ground".
I could see why that would be kept quiet, because even if it was done with the good intention of saving lives, people would be outraged that our military would kill it's own citizens. So in that sense I think there was a cover-up. But what I can't fathom is why they would go to the trouble of faking a plane crash site.
reply to post by TupacShakur
Why? Wouldn't you try something like that? Forget about saving lives on the ground, just for the sake of trying to save their own lives. Besides, there are plenty of stories out there of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to save themselves and others.
Again, remember, they were also trying to save themselves. That's a pretty common story.
The only problem with that is pretty much everybody and their brother has openly said that they would have shot down any of the flights, including 93 if they could but the oppurtunity didn't present itself, plain and simple. So why would you go through all the risk to cover up something that you admitted you would have done?
No they wouldn't not in the least. Saddened, yes, but outraged? No, not at all. Would you have been outraged?
I don't understand why you would think someone would cover up something that they publically admitted they would do.
No sane or rational person can understand that.
Yeah the part I doubt about the official Shanksville story is that the passengers took matters into their own hands and heroically attempted to take back the plane before it crashed.
Why? Wouldn't you try something like that? Forget about saving lives on the ground, just for the sake of trying to save their own lives. Besides, there are plenty of stories out there of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to save themselves and others.
That just sounds like some patriotic bravado to me.
Again, remember, they were also trying to save themselves. That's a pretty common story.
I think that the military shot it down because they heard that two hijacked planes just crashed into the Twin Towers, and they decided "It's either shoot down the plane now and save lives on the ground, or let the plane crash into a building and the people on board will die anyway as well as people on the ground".
The only problem with that is pretty much everybody and their brother has openly said that they would have shot down any of the flights, including 93 if they could but the oppurtunity didn't present itself, plain and simple. So why would you go through all the risk to cover up something that you admitted you would have done?
I could see why that would be kept quiet, because even if it was done with the good intention of saving lives, people would be outraged that our military would kill it's own citizens.
No they wouldn't not in the least. Saddened, yes, but outraged? No, not at all. Would you have been outraged?
So in that sense I think there was a cover-up.
I don't understand why you would think someone would cover up something that they publically admitted they would do.
But what I can't fathom is why they would go to the trouble of faking a plane crash site.
No sane or rational person can understand that.
reply to post by TupacShakur
This speculation:
....isn't supported by any of the facts.
It is true that, considering the obvious fact that multiple airliners had been hijacked in order to be used as suicide "weapons of mass destruction", and subsequent to the order to close the U.S. airspace, authorization to use whatever force necessary to ensure compliance was given. Some say by V.P Cheney, but it's irrelevant since UAL 93 was already down by then.
Now, regarding a "shoot down" supposition, this is where the facts get in the way. The fact that the Flight Data Recorder was recovered, and the information was intact and readable. And, there were no system malfunctions recorded at any time, up until the ending of the recording, which of course was on impact with the ground. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) also functioned normally, and was time-synced with the FDR.
The ATC (Air Traffic Control) records are clear, as well. An F-16 was en-route to the approximate region where UAL 93 was being seen on Primary radar (since the transponder was not active), but the military jet had not yet arrived.
So, what can bring down an airplane like the B-757? Merely shooting at an engine, and destroying that, might not be enough. (Of course, in the case of those hijacker pilots, they may have lost it if faced with only one remaining engine producing power, because of the thrust assymmetry; it takes a greater bit of training to handle that situation than they had).
A very effective bit of damage would be to either the horizontal stabilizer, or a significant portion of one wing, causing enough of the structure to break apart. The elevators are absolutely vital to balancing aerodynamic and center of gravity forces, for flight. In normal operations, the function of the horizontal stab is to provide a downward force to the tail, because the center of lift is aft of the center of gravity...this is called positive stability. A C/G too far aft leads to neutral, or unstable aerodynamic conditions, especially if it is at, or aft of, the C/L.
If you damage enough of one wing, then there will be a rolling moment imparted, because of the unequal lift being generated...the good wing will develop more lift. This may or may not be controllable, depending on many factors....including how much wing area is removed on one side.
But, the common thing about any of those scenarios --- either an engine "hit", or major structural damage, is that ALL of those things will show up on the FDR. Hydraulic systems will be affected...pressure loss, fluid levels drop, etc. The electrical systems will be affected, loss of many circuits (called buses, where the current is routed to from the power sources), etc. There is none of that, in the FDR recording.
What is shown, however, is an intact, perfectly airworthy airplane that has the controls (ailerons and elevators) being manipulated by the normal control wheel on the Flight Deck, which can only occur if done by Human hands.
The FDR records upwards of 200 data-points simultaneously....many that work in concert with each other, so any "fakery" is just out of the question when you consider that everything "matches" up perfectly logically, and as is expected. Of those many data-points, the actual physical movements and positions of the flight control surfaces are monitored and recorded, as well as the physical motions of the control wheel, control column, rudder pedals, thrust levers, etc....
This is a rather poor upload quality (I've seen better, I think it was on Google Video). It is from an Italian source website...odd, isn't it? The majority of "United 93" stuff found when searching turns up the silliest of conspiracy links, over and over. It's the bias built in to most Internet search engines, they rank according to "hits", and display on that basis.
Anyway, this is about the last 5 minutes. This same Italian site hosts the full version.....it begins as United 93 is taxiing into position on the runway, for Take-Off, and is continuous all the way to this part, the ending. You might wish to search for it, for more comprehension:
Notice the depiction of the control wheel, and the responding reaction the airplane makes, as represented by the animation. This is accurate, because there is a slight delay, just exactly as it shows, when you make abrupt control wheel inputs, before the airplane actually responds. Hard to explain, but once you experience it, is easy to understand and adjust to.
The abrupt inputs, by the way, are due to the hijackers' attempts to throw the passengers outside the cockpit door off balance...even as they were trying to break in.
This speculation:
I think that the military shot it down because they heard that two hijacked planes just crashed into the Twin Towers...
....isn't supported by any of the facts.
It is true that, considering the obvious fact that multiple airliners had been hijacked in order to be used as suicide "weapons of mass destruction", and subsequent to the order to close the U.S. airspace, authorization to use whatever force necessary to ensure compliance was given. Some say by V.P Cheney, but it's irrelevant since UAL 93 was already down by then.
Now, regarding a "shoot down" supposition, this is where the facts get in the way. The fact that the Flight Data Recorder was recovered, and the information was intact and readable. And, there were no system malfunctions recorded at any time, up until the ending of the recording, which of course was on impact with the ground. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) also functioned normally, and was time-synced with the FDR.
The ATC (Air Traffic Control) records are clear, as well. An F-16 was en-route to the approximate region where UAL 93 was being seen on Primary radar (since the transponder was not active), but the military jet had not yet arrived.
So, what can bring down an airplane like the B-757? Merely shooting at an engine, and destroying that, might not be enough. (Of course, in the case of those hijacker pilots, they may have lost it if faced with only one remaining engine producing power, because of the thrust assymmetry; it takes a greater bit of training to handle that situation than they had).
A very effective bit of damage would be to either the horizontal stabilizer, or a significant portion of one wing, causing enough of the structure to break apart. The elevators are absolutely vital to balancing aerodynamic and center of gravity forces, for flight. In normal operations, the function of the horizontal stab is to provide a downward force to the tail, because the center of lift is aft of the center of gravity...this is called positive stability. A C/G too far aft leads to neutral, or unstable aerodynamic conditions, especially if it is at, or aft of, the C/L.
If you damage enough of one wing, then there will be a rolling moment imparted, because of the unequal lift being generated...the good wing will develop more lift. This may or may not be controllable, depending on many factors....including how much wing area is removed on one side.
But, the common thing about any of those scenarios --- either an engine "hit", or major structural damage, is that ALL of those things will show up on the FDR. Hydraulic systems will be affected...pressure loss, fluid levels drop, etc. The electrical systems will be affected, loss of many circuits (called buses, where the current is routed to from the power sources), etc. There is none of that, in the FDR recording.
What is shown, however, is an intact, perfectly airworthy airplane that has the controls (ailerons and elevators) being manipulated by the normal control wheel on the Flight Deck, which can only occur if done by Human hands.
The FDR records upwards of 200 data-points simultaneously....many that work in concert with each other, so any "fakery" is just out of the question when you consider that everything "matches" up perfectly logically, and as is expected. Of those many data-points, the actual physical movements and positions of the flight control surfaces are monitored and recorded, as well as the physical motions of the control wheel, control column, rudder pedals, thrust levers, etc....
This is a rather poor upload quality (I've seen better, I think it was on Google Video). It is from an Italian source website...odd, isn't it? The majority of "United 93" stuff found when searching turns up the silliest of conspiracy links, over and over. It's the bias built in to most Internet search engines, they rank according to "hits", and display on that basis.
Anyway, this is about the last 5 minutes. This same Italian site hosts the full version.....it begins as United 93 is taxiing into position on the runway, for Take-Off, and is continuous all the way to this part, the ending. You might wish to search for it, for more comprehension:
Notice the depiction of the control wheel, and the responding reaction the airplane makes, as represented by the animation. This is accurate, because there is a slight delay, just exactly as it shows, when you make abrupt control wheel inputs, before the airplane actually responds. Hard to explain, but once you experience it, is easy to understand and adjust to.
The abrupt inputs, by the way, are due to the hijackers' attempts to throw the passengers outside the cockpit door off balance...even as they were trying to break in.