Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.



Ok I have a few questions.

If the plane was only 40 or so feet from the ground (as per witness statement ) the how did it "nosedive"?(after 300 yards which isn't far doing 300+mph) did I miss something ?

Wouldn't soft ground leave more wreckage that hard ground?

I have done lots of research into the towers but not much on flight 93.

Although I think im gonna dive in this evening. Anymore links you have would be appreciated.




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The answer to your question is no,


I agree with a resounding 'no'.

But I would like to ask the OP if he /she has seen UNITED 93 ?




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


It pitched up before flipping onto its back, and nose diving. The type of crash determines the wreckage. A nose first crash into hard ground tends to blow it apart into a huge debris field. Into soft ground, it tends to do what Flight 93 did, and go into the ground and not leave a big debris field.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


It pitched up before flipping onto its back, and nose diving. The type of crash determines the wreckage. A nose first crash into hard ground tends to blow it apart into a huge debris field. Into soft ground, it tends to do what Flight 93 did, and go into the ground and not leave a big debris field.


Ok so at 300 mph (and that is being generous considering it supposedly crashed at 500 mph or so) it took 2 seconds to go from 40 or so feet to (at least) 120 feet (in order to flip on its back without breaking a wing) and make a complete 90 degree "turn" into the ground?

Does that even seem plausable?

It doesnt to me.

And if it didn't hit directly in a "nosedive" then wouldn't it have broken up along the length of the plane? as the nose hits first and the rest follows and not it one spot?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


But you said a missile is designed to bring down an aircraft with shrapnel. Bring down, not blow up. So all the debries being in the field where it hit does not necessarily mean it was not shot down. Not saying it was shot down, or not shot down.

I am just saying the people whom say debries over a large area would be an indication of the use of a sidewider or other AA missile are wrong. The premise they hope to demonstrate a shootdown of flight 93 (Debries over a very large area) would not be an indication of a shootdown to begin with, because an airliner hit by an AA missile would not desintegrate into tiny pieces in midair.

KAL 007 was shot down with AA by the soviets and the airliner did not blow up, it crashlanded in the ocean. So again, the aftermath some people try to convince us of, in order to make their case for a shootdown, that the plane was shot to bits, isnt an indication for the use of an AA weapon to begin with.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


We never said it would disintegrate in midair. But a missile hit will cause pieces to come off. Look at the DHL that was hit over Baghdad, and how much of the wing was just gone when they landed.That section of wing had to go somewhere, it didn't just disintegrate. Those pieces were scattered all over the ground along their flight path. You would see the same here.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


The 757 is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the air. I've seen one do a near vertical climb. Nothing on that day was outside the flight envelope, and the impact was consistent with a nose low straight in hit.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Merinda
 


We never said it would disintegrate in midair. But a missile hit will cause pieces to come off. Look at the DHL that was hit over Baghdad, and how much of the wing was just gone when they landed.That section of wing had to go somewhere, it didn't just disintegrate. Those pieces were scattered all over the ground along their flight path. You would see the same here.


I guess it depends on the kind of damage the missile did. But still much of the discussion is moot, because the argument some of the theorists make, that debris were scattered over a large area and all of the plane disintegrated over a large area with no large pieces to be found, would not be an indication of a shootdown anyway. So if somebody wants to argue that the plane was shot down, he must accept that the damage done to the airliner is no greater than what an AA missile is capable to inflict.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


A debris field over a large area would mean that it broke up in flight, and that would provide a lot of evidence to a shoot down. There was no debris found over any kind of large area, except for wiring insulation, paperwork, and seat cushions in this case. If it was hit by an IR missile, there should have been pieces of engine from the point that the missile hit until impact. Especially since it probably would have been hit with multiple missiles to ensure it went down. If it was a radar guided missile, then there should have been fuselage pieces found away from the impact site. There weren't, so the odds of a missile are very very small.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Who ever said it was 40 feet????

A quick search found 10,000 feet with a 40 degree nose down angle.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
You gotta be careful of where you get your info.
edit on 2-1-2013 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Who ever said it was 40 feet????

A quick search found 10,000 feet with a 40 degree nose down angle.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
You gotta be careful of where you get your info.
edit on 2-1-2013 by samkent because: (no reason given)


That is from Goodoldaves witness . Page 5 .

He looked up and saw the plane 40 feet above him.

Yet it crashed 900 feet away.

Im trying to reconcile the supposed data with eyewirness statements.

Maybe you should read a thread before posting.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 




Maybe you should read a thread before posting.

There's too much incorrect BS for me to read.
Therefore I skim for the most outlandish statements.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Eyewitness statements are notoriously inaccurate. Especially when it comes to aircraft altitudes. However, as I said, nothing stated was out of the 757s flight envelope.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
@samkent.

Thanks for proving my point. And ignoring the fact I didn't say 40 feet. and that the "outlandish" number was give by a witness and posted by goodoldave whom I respect as a "debunker". Why dont you go tell him that. This isn't the first time I've had you come around and talk nonsense without reading

@zap

I realize that witness statements arnt always 100% accurate . As I said I've done lots of research on the towers but not much on 93.

900 feet at a 40 degree angle would make it ( and this is quick calculation) aprox 400 feet above the witness .now I understand that witnesses can't be 100% accurate but to be off by 300 + feet or so also seems a little off.

But I thank you for your input and will probably be back to ask more questions when I have the time.

What do your calculations show?
edit on 2-1-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Four hundred feet is actually pretty reasonable when it comes to seeing a plane go over head. I've sat and watched F-22s over my head that I swore were less than 10,000 feet, only to find out they were well over that height.

I haven't sat down and done the math on it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they really were a good 350-400 feet over his head.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
How does it tie in with the topic?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

Nope, Donald Rumsfeld did.

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


Because if the 757 isn't capable of making the maneuvers that were on the end of the FDR, then you have staggering evidence of a shoot down. If it wasn't capable of making the maneuvers on its own, the only way they could have happened was if an external force acted on the plane to cause it to act the way it did.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I highly doubt there even was a "Flight 93". If there were, I'm certain it was shot down though.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Take a look at these 93 threads I created. Might help...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look at that thread and then this one....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


They were both covered up. The easiest to do. Make the populace argue over physics when you have a plane that went down and no one questions it. They made Let's Roll a slogan and ended it at that..the plane rolled, and then again and then it went down. So, this guy who trained for years for this gives it a 1, 2, dump it try. I do not believe it.

Sounds more like a 20mm cannon across a wing and/or damage an engine. He is not trained for that...he loses control...tries to steady and it goes over and he cannot recover. Sounds more plausible than he gave up.

MInetas testimony is the key.
edit on 16-3-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join