For those who think Flight 93 was shot down...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Did you miss the part about the crash site being a RECLAIMED STRIP MINE? In other words, a bunch of soft soil dumped to fill up an abandoned mine? A bunch of loose dirt? Have you forgotten that part?

Who says it was "a bunch of soft soil" used? Think about it. Where are they going to get the fill from? 100 miles away? Or in close vicinity to Shanksville? My bet would be close vicinity since it costs money to pay for truck rentals, drivers, etc.

Now, going by that logic, one can conclude that the soil from around the area would be of the same type as the cut soil. I.E. have shale, limestone, coal, and sandstone in it.

Again, where is your source that the soil was soft?

Edit: Fill is also compacted in lifts of 12 inches or less usually. Unless they wanted the soil to consolidate and cause sink holes. Compacted soil is denser than regular non compacted soil BTW.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by ATH911
1. If it was shot in the air before the crater and crashed in that field causing the crater, why is there no debris on the ground leading up to the crater?

2. If it was shot and hit past the crater and crashed somewhere past the crater, are you saying the FBI staged the crater scene?

I never got answer to these two questions.

I still see posters here who still think UA93 was shot down and would like them to answer these.

93 would not have been shot down by a ATA missile but rather it was the 30 in the nose of the F-16. They did not have missiles when they took off. This would explain the debris. This would explain the report of smoke. This could also explain why the pilots, 'before' the lets roll farce, were tilting the plane.

Could they have seen what was on the wing and that could be part of why they also ditched the plane. Then, you create a story about how the passengers took back the plane but died heroes. Add the disinfo and the craziness of the WTC (deflection) and you have a true conspiracy. The only ones who truly know about that shoot down that day are Cheney, Mineta , the pilots and the stand down officer (plus the radio ops). That is less than 10 people to fool a nation.

reply to post by esdad71

You couldn't answer my
questions?

reply to post by ATH911


1. If it was shot in the air before the crater and crashed in that field causing the crater, why is there no debris on the ground leading up to the crater? There was and this is easy to find documented on the web.

2. If it was shot and hit past the crater and crashed somewhere past the crater, are you saying the FBI staged the crater scene? No, there is no staged crash. It was shot down because they had time and there were no witnesses.

There you go.

Originally posted by esdad71
There was and this is easy to find documented on the web.

I've never come across any. Can you please post some?

No, there is no staged crash. It was shot down because they had time and there were no witnesses.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. If you think most of the plane crashed at the crater, then question 2 wasn't for you. It's for shoot down proponents who think most of the plane crashed way past crater, like in New Baltimore.

Originally posted by esdad71
93 would not have been shot down by a ATA missile but rather it was the 30 in the nose of the F-16.

Sorry to correct you but the F-16 carries a 20 MM not a 30.

There was one model that was going to carry a 30 buit was not in production.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. If it was shot in the air before the crater and crashed in that field causing the crater, why is there no debris on the ground leading up to the crater? There was and this is easy to find documented on the web.

You seem to forget or ignore the 2 seperate debris fields that show more of a shoot down then a crash scene.

Also the enigne core that was found a distance away from the crash site.

reply to post by REMISNE


Sorry, the Vulcan 20mm. Simple typo. I was trying to show that they did not have ATA on the load out when they went airborne.

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, the Vulcan 20mm. Simple typo. I was trying to show that they did not have ATA on the load out when they went airborne.

Yes the first planes launched had training rounds but they were still enough to bring down an airliner.

reply to post by REMISNE


I was answering someone else's questions and put them before my answers. I believe in 93 being shot down as well as 587 being covered up weeks after. You do not shoot a plane out of the sky with a Hollywood fireball but would attack the engines or wings on a fly by to put it down and make it look like pilot error/etc.

reply to post by esdad71


dad.....you only have one slight problem with the "shoot-down" hypothesis:

The FDR.

(Actually, another problem exists. The radar tapes. The NORAD tapes. There, two more to deal with. Oh, and a third: Lack of debris)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
dad.....you only have one slight problem with the "shoot-down" hypothesis:

The FDR.

You mena the one that has not been matched by part or serial number to the plane?

Oh, and a third: Lack of debris)

Are you talking about the 2 seperate debris fields?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, I know. However, all of that is data that could bemodified. When someone argues that planes did not strike the towers we have at look at the logical. we have video and eyewitness testimony. There is none for 93. None.

The 3 things that you mentioned are something that has external control and the ability to be altered. As far as it seems that some go with the WTC it has always been my impression that it was doctored due to the fact it took awhile to release and that they played a portion for the families.

The CVR could very well be the actual tape but I believe the FDR was altered. Now, on the CVR at 9:53 where here translated in arabic "Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window" . Why? I think it is because they see what is on the wing and it is not a friendly. At 10:00 they say roll it.

Sorry, but I do not think hardened terrorist would be afraid of a few passengers. They should have sent part of the crew out to deal with them and they knew they were to die anyways so what is the difference? To me it does not all add like a like someone told you that is true enough for you to not question but filled with lies when you dig.

reply to post by esdad71


dad, I think you're conflating a few things here....allow me to explain:

There is none for 93. None.

This, you said about witnesses to the airplane, UAL 93. In fact, it was seen by two people, in a Piper. I can take the time to find the link, if you want. It's been discussed often here at ATS.

....my impression that it was doctored due to the fact it took awhile to release and that they played a portion for the families.

Seems you are referring to the CVR? I earlier was talking about the FDR.

I don't think the "doctored" hypothesis is gonna fly. Perhaps if you looked into what the widow of Capt. Jason Dahl had to say...and also, I think we should check into the actual time after the fact when the CVR was played just for family. I believe you will find that occurred well before the Moussani trial date, when it was played to only those with a need to hear (jury, judge, attorneys, etc...no visitors allowed).

Back to Mrs. Dahl....the only refutation she had was, she believed that her husband had not been removed from his seat, as was widely thought by the FBI. He had been gravely injured (I suspect throat cut) but she thinks she hears him on the tape, and hears what seems to be the hijacker, in English, telling him to sit still, and not move. It is also Mrs. Dahl's belief that Capt. Dahl is responsible for the very brief radar contact that logged, when the radar tag showed the Mode C (altitude) of 8,200 feet, then radar contact was again lost. This was about one minute before impact.

The CVR could very well be the actual tape but I believe the FDR was altered.

Again, that is a very incredible claim to make. It would be immensely difficult, in fact, I'd say impossible to do such a thing and not have the tampering be noticed.

Now, on the CVR at 9:53 where here translated in arabic "Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window" .

Here is where I believe you misunderstand the context of what was actually happening. If you read the entire transcript again, you will realize that there were two hijackers in the cockpit, on flying, obviously. The sounds of commotion alerted them to what was happening, the revolt in the cabin. The hijacker not flying grabbed the crash axe, as it was a far better weapon than just a boxcutter, and the guy flying is telling him, there in Arabic, to show 'them' (meaning the passengers). The idiocy of this is, the hijackers were too stupid to realize that the peephole in the door only works one way...just like in a hotel room door, or your home.

Finally....IF any fighter jet had lined up and was targeting UAL 93, there is NO WAY that anyone in the cockpit would have been able to see it! No rear-view mirrors! No rear window! So, to think that the reference there was to a fighter about to fire, it is not valid, for those reasons (and also the fact that the fighter's location is known, it was still minutes away from intercept. This from the radar tapes).

[edit on 17 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

I'm still waiting for shoot-down proponents to answer my 2 questions.

I'd like to hear from you mikelee too since you seem to think Shanksville no-plane advocates are disinfo.

Originally posted by ATH911
I'm still waiting for shoot-down proponents to answer my 2 questions..

Already answered. you seemed to have ignored.

You seem to forget or ignore the 2 seperate debris fields that show more of a shoot down then a crash scene.

Also the enigne core that was found a distance away from the crash site.

reply to post by REMISNE

I think you really need to answer my questions before making those statements.

thanks

Originally posted by ATH911
I think you really need to answer my questions before making those statements.

What questions have i not answered?

Oh and please be mature enough to accept and admit to facts and evidence shown.

reply to post by REMISNE

Well if you did I didn't see your answers to my 2 questions (if the 2nd one applies to you).

Could you please repost them?

See my 2 questions in my OP.