Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
I understand that one of the engines was found about a mile away.
You have to be careful. Don't forget that the 757 involved in the mid-air over Germany escaped the initial impact relatively intact (the empennage bore the brunt of the collision) but still lost both its engines shortly before striking the ground. They were found a fair distance from the main wreckage.
Aerodynamic forces can cause engines to separate.
Having said that, while it's nice to imagine that heroic passengers attempted to retake control of UA93, there do seem to be a few uncomfortable questions which warrant a closer investigation.
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2941 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2626 times:
Look, when you preface your comments with, "I don't care..." and your main point is built on "I heard...", you can expect such responses. As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, the flight was flown into the ground by terrorists during a struggle for control of the airplane. If, and I say "If" since I've never seen reputable source giving location of this debris or photos, some parts of the plane were on the ground well away from the crash site, do you think that it might be possible for an overspeed airplane at low altitude being maneuvered violently might lose a part or two? Why would the military lie about it? They would be expected to shoot it down! Maybe you should care if it was discussed to death; it was. Search function.
Yes, the flame baited me in. I will now exit and not be involved further in this absurd "conspiracy" discussion.
Jtdieffen From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2589 times:
I have to agree with 4holer, even though I feel somehow cheapened by replying to this question at all. There are eyewitness accounts of the plane descending over PA and no ground accounts of any fighter jets at all. The biggest point of all, however, is the fact that the engines are designed to shear off with excessive force (ie, overspeed below 10,000 ft or "violent maneuvering"). Plus, I agree that if this had been an accident during peace-time, the gov't would have reason to cover it up. But if they did indeed shoot it down, then all it shows is a fast acting decision made to sacrifice lives to save others. I'm sorry, but have some respect for the victims of the Shanksville crash. This is almost as silly as the French theory about the Pentagon.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
I believe the hijacker announced theres a bomb onboard right, or a passenger said so on his cell? The wreckage being found that far away could have been blown off from a detonation? I haven't heard any news agencies/government explaining that there wasn't a bomb, have you? And if they did say that, how would they know? Afterall, they got boxcutters onboard without being detected...
FutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2445 times:
As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, the flight was flown into the ground by terrorists during a struggle for control of the airplane.
Really? Were you there? Perhaps, with your gift of common sense, you could tell us exactly what happened to TWA 800, or CI611?
Why would the military lie about it?
What sounds better; the military shot a plane down that had passengers who might have killed the terrorists and survived, or a heroic story of an uprising against the terrorists that saved lives on the ground?
Serge- The bomb was most likely fake, just a ploy to scare the passengers into not causing an uproar, and I believe that box cutters were allowed onboard at the time.
Anyway, I'm not saying that any of the proposed accounts of the fate of UA93 are wrong, but there is definitely room for debate on this topic. This could be a very easy cover-up for the government.
Ual777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2424 times:
twa 800 was not a fuel poblem, just my opinion. i think that one was a missle.
for awhile they had the control tower communication with TWA 800 and various airplanes departing that night and they said the same thing"something came up from the ground.
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 41 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
I dont know about this, this all makes for interesting speculation though. Although in March I was on a flight from DTW-ATL on NW (I just had to see NWs new terminal) and was sitting next to a guy from Pittsburgh and I overheard his conversation with the guy on the aisle. He said that he lives about 5 miles from where the plane went down, and he said that there is a small lake about a mile from the crash site and that in the days after the crash, the FBI was spending every day and night scouring the lake looking for "something". I know this is just 3rd hand stuff but it is interesting none-the-less. By the way, I really believe that TW800 was shot down by terrorists using a Stinger missle. My cousins happened to be sailing off Long Island that night, and also saw the something go up and arc before hitting the plane. My three cousins, who were age 6, 8, and 13 at the time were interviewed by the FBI and the young ones were told to draw pictures of what they had seen and the 13 year old was interviewed.
HeederA380 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 165 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
Jcs17 -- if the guy said that he was from Pittsburgh AND that he lives only "about 5 miles" from where the plane went down, then he might have been exaggerating about the FBI too. I am very familiar with that area, and know that Pittsburgh is a lot more than 5 miles from Shanksville. (Anyone with a map could tell that ... perhaps, if he really DID live only 5 miles away, he was only generalizing about the Pittsburgh thing??) No offense to you or anything, but I just thought I'd add that, for whatever its worth. Just more babble from me.
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 41 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2296 times:
Cant the guy say he's from Pittsburgh? If the guy said he was from Shanksville, still many people would have no idea where that is at. I live in University Park, a suburb of Dallas, but I still say I live in Dallas even though I live in another city/town, just for simplicity's sake.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
For the last time:
1.) Flight 93 was not shot down. There is no evidence supporting this and everyone from the President down concedes that the order was given to shoot it down, but no AF plane was in the vicinity (the fighters were coming from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts).
2.) The FBI was probably scouring the lake looking for pieces of the plane that may have been sheared off or other evidence that may have ended up there after the crash. In a case like what happened on September 11th, you can believe the FBI went over the field and surrounding areas with a fine tooth comb looking for evidence.
3.) Use the search function next time. I've replied to plenty of these. I wonder why it's so hard to believe that a group of passengers fought back?
HeederA380 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 165 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
JCS17 -- yes, the guy can say that he's from Pittsburgh. I believe that's what I meant when I said that "perhaps he was only generalizing." And I think I also said "No offense." I guess sometimes a person can never win ...
FutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Flight 93 was not shot down. There is no evidence supporting this
The timeline told of Air National Guard fighter jets taking off from bases in Massachusetts and Virginia at 8:46 A.M. and 9:30 A.M., respectively. The first jets, two F-15's from Otis Air National Guard Base, responded to an 8:40 A.M. scramble order and screamed towards New York City six minutes later. The second group, F-16's from Langley AFB, responded to a 9:24 A.M. order and again were en route to their target in six minutes, this time pointing towards Washington D.C. and the threatened Pentagon.
The problem with this story is that neither group of fighters could have made the sonic boom recorded in Pennsylvania by 9:22.
The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1954 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
I can't believe I am responding to this.
No I was not an eye witness and I haven't personally inspected the crash site. However, if you see pictures of the crash site on television, there was not a single recognizable piece of this airplane. Just a big deep hole in the ground. It seems to indicate that it hit the ground dead on at a very high speed. That does not seem to indicate a shoot down scenario at all. (Or could the hold be part of the conspiracy?) It probably did loose a piece or two if the plane lost control before impact. At such a high rate of speed a mile away is not that far as someone has already said. You could RUN a mile in a short time. Pan Am 103 was blown out of the sky. The site of that crash is quite different than United 93. Does the reality of what I say resonate with some of you who think there is "room for debate" on this issue? I hope so.....
FutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Sorry..."the reality (or lack thereof) of what (you) say" is not "resonating" with me. Pan Am 103 was blown up internally by a bomb...that is not at all the same thing as a plane being shot down. There was a recognizable piece of this airplane found:a piece of the engine weighing 1 ton. Also...pieces were found 8 miles away, not 1 mile.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1954 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
FutureSQPilot....I guess you're right. A bomb is not the same thing as being shot down. Thanks for the clarification. However, I naively thought that both would produce a substantial debris field if a plane is blown apart with an air to air missile or by an internal bomb, and not just create a big hole. With Pan Am 103 they were picking bodies out of fields, trees, and off rooftops. Thank you for pointing out my overlooking of a recognizable piece of the engine that was found and my error in distance. Clearly, it must have been shot down. You must be right. I and the rest of us stand corrected.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
While I don't believe it was shot down would it really make a difference if it was? @ the time, three airliners had been used as cruise missiles and only God knew how many more were out there. If it was shot down, it was the right call to make @ the time and given the circumstances.