Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

img444.imageshack.us...

Yeah sorry but that just doesn't happen.

I mean what happened to common sense =[.

No fluoride please.

reply to post by JrDavis


Yes, they can. Granted aircraft aluminum has a tensile strength higher than some steels, but it's still just lightweight aluminum. Slam it into the ground, and it's going to come apart, and you're going to have very small pieces, depending on how it hits.

United 585, a Boeing 737-200








USAir 427, a Boeing 737-300




Both were caused by a rudder control unit freezing at altitude, and when the hot hydraulic fluid went through the valve, it caused a rudder reversal, which flipped both aircraft onto their back, and they slammed into the ground in a nose dive. Neither left very many larger parts behind, and nothing that you could recognize as being from a 737.

As for your link to the Iran crash, no, it shouldn't have left a similar debris field, because the ground it impacted was totally different than the ground that the Iranian plane hit. Harder ground, softer ground, a steeper angle, and lower angle, all of those affect your debris fields. Unless you take another 757, or something of similar size, and slam it into ground that's exactly the same, at the same speed, at the same angle, from the same altitude, you aren't going to recreate something similar. And even then you might not get a similar debris field.

reply to post by JrDavis


And how many crash sites have you studied? How many have you been to? I've been to a few, and I've studied a lot of them. A plane can and does disintegrate under the right conditions, and leave very small pieces behind.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well I was going to respond with something that would tickle your fancy.

But if someone thinks light weight aluminum is the cause of this vaporizing....

When passengers lives are at risk due to the design of the plane.

I highly doubt Boeing would ever create a plane that could easily vaporize and use the plane to send passengers safely to other states and parts of the world.

That would be a lawsuit my friend.

Btw img444.imageshack.us...

From the looks of that. Only 1 ambulance showed up for a 757 full of passengers..

Lol, There's no conspiracy. Because there's no evidence of a plane crashing near there.
And you can hear that on the news channels that covered the wreckage.

You're making it a conspiracy when you try to look for a plane that's not there.

Regarding high speed impacts vaporizing aircraft...



The result is rather conclusive.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JrDavis

 

United 585, a Boeing 737-200

USAir 427, a Boeing 737-300



.

Cool pictures. How long after the crash were they taken?

reply to post by Mamatus


The "rumor" that an engine was found several miles away, is just that...a rumor. A large part of one of the engines was found around 1,000 feet from the crash site, in line with the direction of travel of Flight 93 when it impacted the ground. In other words, it separated from the jet on impact and tumbled to its resting spot.

There is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind that Flight 93 was shot down. None. Nada. Zilch In fact, the available evidence indicates that Flight 93 was intact, up until it hit the ground.

For those of you who think it "vaporized", I hate to break it to you but there was pieces of airliner all over that crash site in addition to pieces of the passengers, crew and hijackers.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
There is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind that Flight 93 was shot down. None. Nada. Zilch In

Freudian Slip?
Or another case of "Pull it' doesnt mean "pull it".

I dunno.

reply to post by JrDavis


I didn't say that it "easily vaporized". I said that if you slam it into the ground, then it's going to come apart into very small pieces, and some are going to disappear.

Aircraft aluminum is usually 7075 aluminum. It has an extremely high tensile strength, but that doesn't mean that it's not susceptible to coming apart. Even though it's still extremely strong for its weight doesn't mean that it's going to come through a crash intact, or in large pieces.

It all depends on how the force is applied to it. Aircraft are designed to be very strong in certain ways, usually ways that are common in flight. Another good example is the KC-135 that literally lost two engines during Desert Storm. Engine mounts are aircraft aluminum, and are very strong when force is applied climbing or descending. This particular aircraft got caught in wake turbulence from another tanker, and started rolling side to side. Afterwards, two of the engine mounts had failed, and the engines had separated from the aircraft, and the two on the other wing were cracked.

Or the American Airlines flight that crashed in Queens shortly after 9/11. It got into a situation where forces were being applied to the tail in a lateral direction, and the tail mounts failed, and it separated.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Nope. Not a Freudian slip at all. Pay attention to the words before and after. He is clearly talking about the terrorists. He should have said "Those that crashed the plane in Pennsylvania"

reply to post by maxella1


The first were taken within a few hours of the crash, over the following several days as the NTSB was there collecting debris for the investigation.

I was in Bethesda MD on 9/11. We were at a job site and by 10 :00, five or more construction workers were standing around a radio, work had completely stopped.
The radio announcer said, " jets have been scrambled to intercept flight 93. Soon after, the radio announcer said, "we have confirmation that our jets have downed the passenger jet flight 93"
We all looked at each other and said, "wow, it's really real when the military shoots down our own commercial airliner".
After that we all were told to leave the job-site and return to our hotel rooms until further notice. By the time we got to the hotel, 10 minutes away, the television portrayed the demise of flight 93 completely differently.
The same group of people who were listening to the radio broadcast were with me at the hotel lobby, we all looked around at each other and shrugged. We all kept waiting for some sort of indication that we were not crazy but the official story never changed.

reply to post by tanda7


So the radio announcer screwed up. Your point is?

reply to post by tanda7


A lot of information was given out that day that changed over the course of the day. There was a car bomb in Washington, there were anywhere from 5-7 planes taken, a Korean Air flight into Alaska was hijacked, etc. The news media was getting fragments of reports, and running with them.

reply to post by tanda7


It would be a logical assumption in someone's mind that it was shot down if they heard first that jet fighters had been scrambled and then heard the jet was down in a field. And you know what they say about assumptions.....

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by maxella1

 

The first were taken within a few hours of the crash, over the following several days as the NTSB was there collecting debris for the investigation.

Where can I find this information?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by tanda7

 

So the radio announcer screwed up. Your point is?

Confusion, coincidence and incompetence works on everything.

reply to post by maxella1


More often than not. Think about how often the media screws up stories.