Did Norad shoot down flight 93? , page 6

reply to post by maxella1

---

Depending on the weapon used.....a trail of debris along the direction of travel to the crash site. Flight 93, had an impact point, with debris carrying on in the general direction of travel indicating the airplane was intact until it impacted the ground.

reply to post by Pervius

---

Wrong. The Boeing 787 is the first Boeing aircraft that is fly-by-wire. All Airbus aircraft are fly-by-wire, but Boeing has only recently gone that route. And the pilots are in total control over the aircraft. It's not a "the computer controls the aircraft and the pilot is a passenger" role that people claim. The pilot is in total control over the aircraft at all times. The difference is that the controls respond faster, and smoother than a traditional pulley and wire system that has been used until recently.

reply to post by Pervius

---

Zaphod is absolutely correct.



Flight Global Archive/Boeing 767

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

---

Sorry dude but some of those pictures of the supposed victims have been proven to be photoshopped.
Especially Elizebeth Waino.

And the photos of the debri you posted arent exactly concrete are they ?

Check out this page :

flight93hoax.blogspot.co.uk...

Originally posted by JeZeus
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

---

Sorry dude but some of those pictures of the supposed victims have been proven to be photoshopped.
Especially Elizebeth Waino.

And the photos of the debri you posted arent exactly concrete are they ?

Check out this page :

flight93hoax.blogspot.co.uk...

Sorry, I'm not rising to the bait.

If you have any facts to post in support of your position please do, otherwise...

Originally posted by JeZeus
reply to post by Frankidealist35

---

The story about the passangers is just that , a story.

But the flight may have been shot down , if it was there at all .

The thing is the size of the crator is pathetic for a nose dive , and even if it was shot at - it must have been oblitorated to leave a little scortch mark like that.

Can a missile blow up an airliner? Isnt the charge just sufficient, to bring it down but not enough to shatter the hull?

reply to post by Merinda

---

Can a missile blow up an airliner? Isnt the charge just sufficient, to bring it down but not enough to shatter the hull?

Yes and no.
You would have to disbelieve ALL of the evidence provided.
Flight recorder
Cockpit recorder.
Phone calls.
Ground witnesses.
Lack of debris field at the explosion point.

So is our government good enough to put forth ALL this false evidence and hide it for over ten years?
Hint: Think Libya.

reply to post by Merinda

---

No. An air to air missile is usually made up of between 20 and 80 pounds of explosive or so. It also usually doesn't detonate on contact with the target, but has a proximity warhead that throws out shrapnel. This gives it a better chance of hitting the target, without having to actually hit the target.

The AIM-7 Sparrow, has a warhead of 88 pounds. The AIM-120 AMRAAM, has a warhead of 50 pounds in the A/B and 40 pounds in the C. These are radar guided missiles, and would track on the largest radar target, which would be the fuselage.

The AIM-9 Sidewinder has a warhead of about 21 pounds. This is an infrared missile, and tracks on the engines or the APU.

This is 200 grams of Semtex placed inside the rear cargo hold of a Boeing 747 that was pressurized. As you can see it leaves huge pieces of debris.



If Flight 93 had exploded in midair, there would be large pieces of debris laying on the ground all around the area, and the debris field would look nothing like it did. The impact site is consistent however, with an aircraft that did a nose dive into soft ground.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Merinda

---

Can a missile blow up an airliner? Isnt the charge just sufficient, to bring it down but not enough to shatter the hull?

Yes and no.
You would have to disbelieve ALL of the evidence provided.
Flight recorder
Cockpit recorder.
Phone calls.
Ground witnesses.
Lack of debris field at the explosion point.

So is our government good enough to put forth ALL this false evidence and hide it for over ten years?
Hint: Think Libya.

What about Lybia?

reply to post by Mamatus

---

What does your friend supposedly being a test pilot have to do with anything?you keep posting that.And area 42?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Merinda

---

YouTube Link

If Flight 93 had exploded in midair, there would be large pieces of debris laying on the ground all around the area, and the debris field would look nothing like it did. The impact site is consistent however, with an aircraft that did a nose dive into soft ground.

A nosedive into soft ground is also consistent with a shootdown especially if there is a trail of minor debries.

The hypothesis presented by some people, that a large debriefield where a plane has been blown up into little pieces is indication of a shootdown seems to be wrong. To achieve what some people describe the crashsite to have been like in their minds it would have been necessarry to detonate explosives throughout different segments in the aircraft.

reply to post by Merinda

---

No it isn't. There would have been debris scattered for miles if it was hit by a missile (not paper and light debris). All the debris field was within that field where it hit. There was no large or heavy debris anywhere else, except what could have been thrown by impact.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

This has been the issue for years and the answer has been given many times. I do not understand why it is so hard to understand the mechanics of it or the logic of the event. If it was shot down then we should have seen the debris field stretched along the flight line or parallel to the flight path due to the winds. But we never do and all debris starts from the impact zone and goes downwind. Heck I have asked many times for just one, one solid tangible hunk of debris that was found along the flight path. Never have seen it.

I have said before, if I was supplied with actual evidence of a shoot down, I'd take a more interested look into the claim. But there has never been any.

9/11: Criminal Incompetence and Ass-Covering by the Bush Administration
  Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags

Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags

NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags

The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags

Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags

Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: