Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Flight 93 crash photos taken from various sources.

First, the very real people who died...



The aircraft under discussion...


The location of the crash site...


The impact crater...






Crash debris...




Speaking of finding crash debris, including human remains, "in and under the trees"...





posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
What would the debris site look like if it was shot down?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
All Commercial Aircraft are now fly-by-wire.

Pilots no longer control aircraft, they only VOTE on what the aircraft should do. If the electronics go down, the pilot has absolutely no control over the aircrafts control surfaces.

WHY did they adopt Fly-by-wire?

The ability to turn the aircraft into a rock. They no longer have to "shoot" aircraft. They can be switched off easily now and there's nothing a pilot can do to control the aircraft.

This new technology is now in automobiles. There no longer is a cable going from the pedals to the motor/transmission. Even steering on automobiles is now going electric.

A new feature that can be used against people.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
What would the debris site look like if it was shot down?


This is a map of the debris field of Pan Am 103 that had a bomb explode in flight over Lockerbie Scotland.

Bomb, air to air missile, same difference...




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Zaphod is absolutely correct.



Flight Global Archive/Boeing 767



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
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...



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

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...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JeZeus

Arrgh.

All i have read is conspiracy theories ........
yes , and i believe the fairies and pixies are running wall street so everyone`s money is fantabulous.

I refuse to take part in this childish debate ....none of these debunkers have anything to say other than "no"... these new debunkers have a serious problem ... they DO NOT follow their own theory (THE O.S ) ... so i will now refrain from posting in this thread unless i feel like my post will be adding information to the thread , as i feel the debunkers are hovering ... waiting for a chance to derail the thread ...... SORRY O.P but this is how 911 threads go on here , what can we expect from a "controlled" website.


MODS : please check out the debunkers in here as we have a little ego problem , again , and i feel that this thread is about to be hijacked by extremist nutjobs like many excellent threads before.

NOTE : I am open to all opinions and theories , untill they get border-line pathetic.



Heres the deal.

This forum is for the discussion of the subject matter.

Discussion most certainly does not mean closed minded, one sided, dismiss everything put in front of you by people with good knowledge, pat on the back "yes you must be right" pandering to your opinion.

It means the exchange of ideas and mulling possibilities.

What you term to be "debunkers" are people potentially with more knowledge than you on certain subject matters who have a different opinion to the one that you have.

And if you can't engage in a civilised discussion with them without resorting to petty bickering and a refusal to even consider another persons point of view then maybe ATS is the wrong place for you to be.

This forum has VERY strict rules on the whole 9/11 discussion subject and that's because zealots from both sides of the debate simply want to butt heads with each other and then resort to acting like they're still in the schoolyard. Don't fall foul of that.

That's the only warning I'm going to post, because I should have 9/11 trolled your post above.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

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?
edit on 26-12-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by poloblack
That would be Larry Silverstein, if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
It is a philosophical and moral dilemma (there is even a game theory attached to the concept)...but I have to go Machiavellian on this one as a) the passengers are already destined to die if the hijackers succeed and b) it sends a messaage to future potential hijackers that they (and the plane) will be hunted down to prevent them from crashing it into strategic infrastructure or iconic symbols of the republic and killing many additional citizens as well. It is a hard decision on the one hand (morality) but an easier one on the other hand (big picture - saving lives). The question is did they have a chance to shoot down planes or were air force assets diverted to prevent same??
edit on 27-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Merinda
 






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.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
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.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join