Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 



You know planes have wings right? Why would you have to shoot anything but one wing with any of the weapons you've mentioned? It would turn into a stone glider.


Problem here is that the engines are attached to the wings, blew off wing and come up on engines short

We know that both engines were intact and running up tp moment of crash


Try again.......


Okay I will. There's a wing that's called a "Tailwing" and it doesn't have an propulsion engine attached to it. Planes don't fly well when that wings missing or damaged either.


edit on 27-6-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   


Watched it again.... Still not convinced...
edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


And plenty of items that didn't belong to flight 93 were turned in as well. Your point...................



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


You're right....you lose the tail and the plane is going to go violently out of control and hit the ground......creating a much larger crash site. But then again, we know from the evidence that the tail was still in one piece...and attached....when fight 93 hit the ground.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


And plenty of items that didn't belong to flight 93 were turned in as well. Your point...................


Point is that it doesn't make sense to me.. Where did you find that things not from the plane were turned in?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I would take almost anything the CIA said with a pinch of salt. You however appear to trust them. Why?




So, you trust the American government as a whole on their version of 9/11 events, then question why someone who you constantly call a 'truther' (maxella) is posting official CIA info.

One minute you are defending the government for years, the next you are distrusting them because this thread goes against other things you have said!

You are full of contradictions when it suits you, and you OS defenders change like the wind to suit the theory that you support. Be a man and stick by what you say.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Let's face it, 93 was shot down.

I don't have a problem with the plane being shot down by our military. I don't think the military had anything to do with 9/11 other than having to shoot down a runaway plane.

The death toll was less by them bringing it down. They went with the heroic story that the passengers brought it down so the government could get around any lawsuits the passengers families would surely bring.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


And your opinion, does not mesh with ANY of the facts. The "multiple" debris sites is a misnomer. The ONLY debris found any significant distance from the crash site, was lightweight and blown by the wind.


Yes they found pieces of paper with passengers names on it 8 miles away from the crater. I can believe that but it seems strange to me that people 8 miles away found these pieces of paper and for some reason decided that it came from the plane and gave it to the FBI.

I found a empty envelope with peoples name on it should i call the FBI just to make sure it didn't come from a crime scene 8 miles away? ( not a true story )

See where I'm going with it?


There were pages from a United inflight magazine found, that's what gave them a clue.

These two photos contain all of the debris reported at New Baltimore.







posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


People who were there.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


And your opinion, does not mesh with ANY of the facts. The "multiple" debris sites is a misnomer. The ONLY debris found any significant distance from the crash site, was lightweight and blown by the wind.


Yes they found pieces of paper with passengers names on it 8 miles away from the crater. I can believe that but it seems strange to me that people 8 miles away found these pieces of paper and for some reason decided that it came from the plane and gave it to the FBI.

I found a empty envelope with peoples name on it should i call the FBI just to make sure it didn't come from a crime scene 8 miles away? ( not a true story )

See where I'm going with it?


There were pages from a United inflight magazine found, that's what gave them a clue.

These two photos contain all of the debris reported at New Baltimore.






do you have a link where I can find these photos?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


People who were there.


Cool



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


do you have a link where I can find these photos?


Downloaded them years ago. try a google reverse image search if interested.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Okay. So, what weapon was used to shoot down Flight 93?


What has this got to do with the thread? Stay on topic for once!



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


And your opinion, does not mesh with ANY of the facts. The "multiple" debris sites is a misnomer. The ONLY debris found any significant distance from the crash site, was lightweight and blown by the wind.


This is not a flight 93 thread, if you have questions about flight 93 then make your own thread. Stay on topic.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


In spite of all the evidence that Flight 93 was fully intact up until the moment it hit the ground....you want to stay with the idea it was shot down? Interesting....



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


blah blah blah...

I dont have questions about Flight 93, OTHER people on this thread do and have asked those questions. I answered them.

If you do not like that...then.....that is your problem.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


You know planes have wings right? Why would you have to shoot anything but one wing with any of the weapons you've mentioned? It would turn into a stone glider.


Maybe, just maybe....

The real criteria with determining if the aircraft was shot down is the wreckage. There would have been pieces of the aircraft prior to the crash site along the flight path. There was NONE! All of the wreckage was at the main crash site except for some light material blown downwind.

Therefore, even without any other evidence that is the ultimate criteria for determination and it was not present. Therefore, NO SHOOTDOWN!



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


In spite of all the evidence that Flight 93 was fully intact up until the moment it hit the ground....you want to stay with the idea it was shot down? Interesting....


Yes I do. I never argued that the plane wasn't intact. I said you could damage the wings and bring it down. A damaged tail-wing would bring it down. Why does the plane have to be blown apart to crash? Plenty of planes have crashed in one piece.

P.S. the other guy's right. We're off topic.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ok, I know it's off topic, but I have to answer. It's not a "tail wing" it's either a horizontal stabilizer, or elevator, and yes, they CAN fly if it's damaged or even most of it is ripped off.

en.wikipedia.org...:747-CA006-1.png

United 232 suffered severe damage to its horizontal stabilizer, and flew for several hours afterwards. The only reason that it crashed on landing is because when the explosion damaged the stabilizer, it ripped into the hydraulic lines, which terminated in the stabilizer.

There was no sign that Flight 93 suffered damage to the horizontal stabilizers, or that it was shot down. If either event had occurred the debris field would have been much larger than it was.

Plenty of other aircraft crashed in one piece, but that was because they had a catastrophic failure of some sort, or the pilots screwed up and flew into the ground. You are arguing that there was damage to Flight 93, therefore there should have been some debris outside the impact zone, and there wasn't.
edit on 6/27/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I bumped an old thread on UA 93's debris field. Continue the discussion there.





top topics
 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join