Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA93 Conspiracy  
User currently offline777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

First of all I don't care if this has been discussed to death.

I heard that some of the debris was found over 1 mile away, and to me that shows clear evidence of a missile strike, and not the desperate struggle of passengers.

What do you think?

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2844 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.


User currently offlineHaveric From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1247 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

I have to vote with 4Holer's analysis of this pathetic topic.

User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3040 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2775 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.



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineJtdieffen From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2738 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.


Regards! JDief
User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2657 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...

Just something to think about.

....Serge


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

I heard that some of the debris was found over 1 mile away, and to me that shows clear evidence of a missile strike, and not the desperate struggle of passengers.

1 mile really isn't that far away if you think how fast it was going and if the engines did break away before impact. How is that clear evidence of a missle strike?? Did you see it?


User currently offlineFutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2594 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.


User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2573 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.

just my opinion. hundreds of 747's and 1 blows up



ual 777 contrail


User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2539 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.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineAirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

The airplane was not shot by a missile, there is a witness(and im sure more than just this one) who watched the airplane fly low and fast over his head before slamming nosefirst into the ground.
Tony


User currently offlineHeederA380 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2474 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.  Smile

User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3861 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

I don't know enough about the situation yet to guess one way or the other about what happened to Flight 93, but maybe this website would provide more theories for you guys to agree/disagree with:

http://www.flight93crash.com/

LoneStarMike

User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2445 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.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2419 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?

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineHeederA380 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2387 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 ...

User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

There has been comment that UA93 did exceed the design limits for speed, and may have even broken the sound barrier.

In addition, multiple eyewitnesses have stated that the aircraft made unusual maneouvres at extremely low altitude before it crashed.

Both of these suggest that parts of the aircraft could have been overstressed and therefore may have broken off before the aircraft crashed.

Just my 0.02,
redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineFutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2354 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.

You can find much more at the website provided by LoneStarMike (thanks, btw), http://www.flight93crash.com





User currently offlineKlwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2082 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2288 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.....


User currently offlineFutureSQPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2204 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.

User currently offlineLegalman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2108 times:

just a note about TWA 800. I remember at the time of the crash, no one could have imagined a missle brought the plane down. Today, seems more possible.

User currently offlineKlwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2082 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2098 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.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2064 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.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

i agree with you b757300, could you imagine if they had gotten more planes than the 4?
maybe 10 more, they would have crippled the country.

they should have been made a dust bowl after all this but we see where we are now.

thank the lord it wasnt anymore, TWA 800 is a diffrent story and one that some would say ties to this.i dont think it does.


ual 777 contrail


User currently offlineKaiTakFan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

did anyone else hear reports of UA93 being inverted just before impact? For some reason that sticks out in my head lately. Any extra info would be appreciated!

25 Flyboy36y : I feel filthy for replying... but.... Serge... the boxcutters were not "nuck aboard". Back then they were legal.
26 LMML 14/32 : For debris to be found "one mile away" is nothing. If the plane was shot down, which means a mid-air explosion, debris would have been strewn around f
27 ILOVEA340 : I just think conclusions about the heroic actions were drawn way too soon. LMML 14/32, Check your info. that size debri field would mean that one piec
28 Sudden : KaiTakFan, UA93 was "flying" inverted just before crash. I must say I think this have been discussed enough, but can't help myself from making a post
29 Virgin744 : I watched the documentary on this last night in the UK, and whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not all the evidence points to the plane NOT bein
30 Arsenal@LHR : I will echo what a lot of people have already said. Looking at the UA 93 crash site, you see a big crater, about 30 feet deep, this would obviously su
31 HlywdCatft : I remember on Sept 11 after the two WTC crashes and the Pentagon I remember hearing repeatedly that there was a fourth plane out there on the news and
32 LUFC : I would never say never to anything, but having watched the documentary on UK TV only last night, there were many transcripts from cellphone conversat
33 Chazzerguy : For what it's worth, I seem to recall press reports saying the debris found a mile from the site was not an engine but was what some people call "flu
34 Arsenal@LHR : The "fluff" that people saw was probably aircraft insulation. This would suggest parts of the fuselage must have broken off in-flight.
35 Pilot1113 : >>The "fluff" that people saw was probably aircraft insulation. This would suggest parts of the fuselage must have broken off in-flight. Isn't it also
36 FutureSQPilot : Clearly, it must have been shot down. You must be right. I and the rest of us stand corrected. Sigh...I never said that the plane was or wasn't shot d
37 4holer : Finally- I am not saying any of these scenarios are true or not, so please don't tell me I'm right or wrong, I'm only stating facts. Sigh...I never sa
38 Arsenal@LHR : Debris was supposedly found 8 miles away, it cannot be the debris from the plane when it impacted the ground at Shanksville.
39 Pilot1113 : >>supposedly found 8 miles away "Supposedly" being the keyword there. No where, except someone's conspiracy site, have I have been able find credible
40 Wing : "I will echo what a lot of people have already said. Looking at the UA 93 crash site, you see a big crater, about 30 feet deep, this would obviously
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Valujet 592 Conspiracy Theorists posted Wed Dec 26 2007 21:43:22 by BR715-A1-30
9W Conspiracy To Sabotage AUS Cricket Team posted Mon Oct 15 2007 04:34:16 by Zeke
"Dry Runs" Conspiracy And TSA Loophole posted Fri Jun 8 2007 17:18:46 by GateHold
J'Accuse! Conspiracy To Tank Dollar Unmasked! posted Tue Dec 5 2006 02:08:05 by Dougloid
Remembering Flight UA93, UA 175, posted Sun Sep 10 2006 22:48:19 by FL370
Contrails/Conspiracy Theorists posted Thu Jul 27 2006 18:36:42 by Phatty3374
How Exactly Did Those On UA93 Find About The Hijac posted Sun May 21 2006 11:23:43 by Joffie
Picture Of UA93 On CNN.com Doesn't Look Right posted Wed Apr 12 2006 17:28:53 by AviationAddict
Conspiracy Theories Wanted: EK & Alliances posted Wed Dec 28 2005 17:44:17 by Abrelosojos
Airlines & 787 - A Little Conspiracy Theory... posted Thu Jun 16 2005 15:09:42 by BlueSky1976