777kicksass
Topic Author
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2000 9:52 pm

UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:34 am

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?
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:55 am

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.
 
haveric
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:31 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:09 am

I have to vote with 4Holer's analysis of this pathetic topic.
 
4holer
Posts: 2724
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:20 am

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.....................
 
jtdieffen
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:46 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:33 am

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
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:21 am

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
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:57 am

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?
 
FutureSQPilot
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 11:23 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:58 am

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
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:33 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:05 am

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
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:19 am

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!
 
AirT85
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 1999 12:36 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:33 am

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
Why would God make us all so different, if He wanted us to be the same?
 
heedera380
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2001 4:17 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:58 am

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
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:00 am

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

 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:08 am

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!
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:22 am

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
 
heedera380
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2001 4:17 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:35 am

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 ...
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:44 am

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!
 
FutureSQPilot
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 11:23 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:48 am

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



 
klwright69
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:21 am

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
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 11:23 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:36 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:59 am

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.
 
klwright69
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 11:09 am

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
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 11:37 am

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."
 
ual777contrail
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:33 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:27 pm

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
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:14 pm

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!
 
flyboy36y
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:45 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:21 pm

I feel filthy for replying... but....

Serge... the boxcutters were not "nuck aboard". Back then they were legal.
 
lmml 14/32
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 2:27 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:12 pm

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 for tens of miles. The Lockerbie 747 had a debris field with a radius of 560 miles !!!
 
ILOVEA340
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 9:49 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:49 pm

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 piece was founf in San Francisco and the other in San Diego... It takes even a plane nearly 1.5 hours to fly this distance.
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:34 pm

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.
There was a documentary on Discovery a few days ago about UA93, and they didn't mention anything about the smoke that come from the plane when it still had some Alt.
This can also be heard on the ATC tape. They do talk about smoke coming from the A/C.
What is it that says that a A/C must be shot down by a missile!?
today's fighter jets can cause a lot of damage using there gun.
2 fighters were waiting in the air for UA93 in case it would come to close, and then blow it away. That is facts that are no secret.
Am not expert, and don't have access to any material, but it all looks like a major cover up!


I don't buy it! I think they took the secure way out of it, and shot it down.
When in doubt, flat out!
 
virgin744
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 1999 5:51 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:43 pm

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 being shot down or an explosion onboard. If you look at the impact site it does not look like a plane would look, had it been shot down, the impact site's hole and the shape are not consistent with a plane being shot down by a missile or otherwise. You can see the angle of the impact and also the size and it most certainly doesnt look like being missiled. If you compare the impact site to that of say, the Lockerbie bombing then you can see evidence at Lockerbie of an explosion onboard as the debris was over a far greater area of land, and given the fact that Flight 93 was not at high altitude, you can deduce that had it been shot down then debris would not have been so concentrated to the area of impact but would have left a long trail for tens of miles long but this was simply not the case and the debris could only be found very close to the impact site. Added to this are the conversations with passengers onboard who said they were going to do something then one can say with some certainty that this was most likely caused because of a struggle and not being shot down.

virgin744
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:30 pm

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 suggest the plane hit the ground in a vertical position at high speed, this would not have happened if it was shot down. If a missile did hit it, wreckage would have been found strewn over a large area over hundreds of miles. Some claim bit's of a huge chunk of the engine and other small pieces of debris were found 8 miles away, this was probably due to the high stresses the aircraft's structure would have gone through, due to flying at low altitude at high speed.

If you look at the UA 737 crash in Colorado springs, that also shares the same characteristics at UA 93, both planes hit the ground in a vertical position at high speed from a similar height.

Arsenal@LHR
In Arsene we trust!!
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:39 pm

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 that it might be heading towards D.C. and that they had sent fighter jets up to intercept it.

The military flat out admitted that it would not hesitate to shoot down a highjacked airliner if they knew it was bound for a highly populated area.

I'm not saying that this DID happen, but with all of these heroic stories and stuff how do they know that one of the passengers broke one of the terrorists necks etc? The Let's roll story makes a good heroic story and make these guys look like heroes on that dark day and it could make for a god coverup if it was shot down. Come on, how many of you believe that our government is always honest with us? It may or may not have happened.
 
LUFC
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 8:00 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:52 pm

I would never say never to anything, but having watched the documentary on UK TV only last night, there were many transcripts from cellphone conversations to relatives from people in the aircraft.

Moments before the plane disappeared off the radar screen one of the relatives was actually speaking to one of the ring leaders of the passenger take over attempt. I think he was the father-in-law of the guy who was about to go do the business. He was interviewed in person along with his daughter, and said he heard the now infamous words "Lets roll" and the chaos that followed. Shortly afterwards the phone went dead, as did all the other phones that were still live to the plane.

If that isn't evidence enough that these guys brought the plane down then I don't know what is.

As far as the engine separation; according to the passengers the plane had been performing steep descents at high speed over a period of time, and eventually when the shit hit the fan it went nose down. Engines are designed to separate under severe vibration and stress. That seems a logical explanation to me.

Regards.
 
chazzerguy
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 4:06 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:10 pm


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 "fluff" or light weight debris... Paper, fabric, small and light pieces of metal... Stuff of that nature... And their location relative to the crash site was consistent with the prevailing wind patterns that day... The stuff was likely thrown up by the impact with the ground, blown by the wind, then settled out a mile away.

Conspiracy theories seem to emphasize how little we trust our governments these days... A pretty sorry state of affairs. Seems like there is rarely a major news story that doesn't have conspiracy theorists champing at the bit over something.

 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:22 pm

The "fluff" that people saw was probably aircraft insulation. This would suggest parts of the fuselage must have broken off in-flight.

In Arsene we trust!!
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:47 am

>>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 possible that the explosion that followed the crash could have blown this debris?

- Neil Harrison
 
FutureSQPilot
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 11:23 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:01 am

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 down, all I did was show evidence that *might* allude to the fact that it was.
And, as Sudden brought up, the plane didn't necessarily need to be brought down by a missile.
Chazzerguy- I believe the "fluff" that you speak of was also found 8 miles away over a mountain ridge.
Another thing- multiple eye witnesses reported a second plane that "appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out" seconds after the boom of the crash.

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.
 
4holer
Posts: 2724
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:51 am

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 said that the plane was or wasn't shot down, all I did was show evidence that *might* allude to the fact that it was.

Anyone else enjoy these two sentences as much as I did?

Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:03 am

Debris was supposedly found 8 miles away, it cannot be the debris from the plane when it impacted the ground at Shanksville.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 9:04 am

>>supposedly found 8 miles away

"Supposedly" being the keyword there. No where, except someone's conspiracy site, have I have been able find credible sources that can affirm this.

Most of what the conspirators want to believe has no basis in fact. In fact, all was taken directly from the minutes/hours directly after the crash (in the confusion) and presented as fact. It was later refuted. What the media reported immediately following the crash was full of flaws and inconsistencies. 60 Minutes II had a good piece on all the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and they debunked each one. It was a good piece.

If you still want to dwell on what could have happened, then I would want to throw in that Elvis brought that plane down in the middle of field as part of a giant government test. Better yet, the plane was never hijacked and it was a giant government conspiracy that involved magnetism that drew the plane to that location by screwing with the autopilot.

- Neil Harrison
 
wing
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: UA93 Conspiracy

Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:03 pm

"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 suggest the plane hit the ground in a vertical position at high speed, this would not have happened if it was shot down."

I will back up what Arsenal@LHR said.In 1998 a Turkish Airlines B737400 crashed,inadvertantly entering a very big Thunderstorm while trying to avoid Incirlik AFB airspace.The tail section seperated from the aircraft because of the strong up and downdrafts made a force strong enough to exceed design limits.Aircraft fell out of sky uncontrollably-passing the sound barrier- and dived on the ground head on.The wreckedge site was looking exactly the same as UA93 crash site.The aircraft remains were found 15m underground.No piece were bigger than couple of inches.And the tail section which seperated was found 3 miles away.My point here is Airliners has a lot of limits while flying.They are not made for a lot of High G maneuvering and mach speeds.Pilots are trained to remain and fly within limits.A terrorist or even a passenger who was sitting at the controlls of UA 93 may easily exceed the limits and cause some parts to seperate before impact .That doesnt look like a missile shot down to me.
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"