Let's speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93?

If both engines had been shot out then that would mean that the plane was shot down or being shot at. It's safe to assume on such a theory that the pilots are still alive. If they are alive they will do everything in their power to slow the aircraft's descent to a smooth glide and possibly ditch in the water or pull off a belly landing on soft terrain at the slowest velocity they could get the airplane at.

There are procedures in place in case of power plant failure. Don't assume that if both engines go out then the entire aircraft would simply fall out of the sky because it doesn't happen like that. To disable an aircraft and cause something like that to happen a lot more damage would have to be done and their would be several more targets making it more difficult to bring down and more open to the theory that it was shot down. There would be more evidence.

Shattered OUT...

The biggest evidence that Flight 93 was shot down is the 2 distinct debris fields so far away from the crash site and the 1 engine found over 2,000 feet away.

If Flight 93 had just gone into the ground at a high angle of attack thier would be no debris fields and the engine would not be so far away from the crash site.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The biggest evidence that Flight 93 was shot down is the 2 distinct debris fields so far away from the crash site and the 1 engine found over 2,000 feet away.

If Flight 93 had just gone into the ground at a high angle of attack thier would be no debris fields and the engine would not be so far away from the crash site.

Thats not proof of a shootdown, thats proof that the engine may not have been attached to the aircraft at the moment of impact.

It wasn't the entire engine, but the front fan. The engines on this (and
most commercial aircraft) are turbofans. Turbofans have a large fan
which sucks in large amount of air, some is directed to combustion
chamber, most is directed around engine where it is heated and mixes
with combustion products. The heated air is exhausted out. Engine
mounts are designed to break off if overstressed. Considering speed (580
mph) and extreme angle at which plane was put into by the hijackers
is possible for engine or part of it to break off before impact and roll
down hill several hundred feet (not miles) like tin foil types keep shouting
about.

The biggest evidence that Flight 93 was shot down is the 2 distinct debris fields so far away from the crash site and the 1 engine found over 2,000 feet away.

2,000 feet away huh?

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

www.911myths.com...

Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

web.archive.org...://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
If both engines had been shot out then that would mean that the plane was shot down or being shot at. It's safe to assume on such a theory that the pilots are still alive. If they are alive they will do everything in their power to slow the aircraft's descent to a smooth glide and possibly ditch in the water or pull off a belly landing on soft terrain at the slowest velocity they could get the airplane at.

There are procedures in place in case of power plant failure. Don't assume that if both engines go out then the entire aircraft would simply fall out of the sky because it doesn't happen like that. To disable an aircraft and cause something like that to happen a lot more damage would have to be done and their would be several more targets making it more difficult to bring down and more open to the theory that it was shot down. There would be more evidence.

Shattered OUT...

i'm not a "truther"...so to me...the plane would have already been hijacked...and with the civilians rushing the cockpit...the hijackers woulda been a bit distracted...then it gets shot...they go...oh crap we're screwed!

if it was shot down when the realization that the attacks were happening....is a possibility. I wouldnt have been mad at the government for shooting down a hijacked aircraft that day...

Originally posted by BeZerk
As stated in a few post backs there are scores of eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradict the government’s claim that courageous passengers fought the hijackers forcing the the plane to descent at high speeds into a empty field.

You list two here, a score is 20, so you claim there are at least 40 eyewitnesses who contradict what is said, Please post the rest

Originally posted by BeZerk
Viola Saylor saw Flight 93 pass very low over her house in Lambertsville, which is a mile north of the official crash site. She was in her backyard when she heard a very loud noise and looked up to find herself “nose to nose” with Flight 93, which she says was flying “upside down” as it passed overhead. It was blue and silver, she said, and glistened in the sunlight. It was so low that it rustled the leaves of her 100-foot maple tree in her yard.

It flew southeastward for about three more seconds and even gained elevation before it crashed over the hill with a “thud,” she said.

snip

Originally posted by BeZerkWally Miller, a Somerset County coroner, told the Houston Chronicle:

"It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky."

In the Washington Post..."It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it."
BeZerk

Why have you used these two eyewitness reports? One says they saw a plane before it crashed, while another implies that wreckage was just dumped there. These two are incompatible with each other in your arguments.

And why are you using eyewitness reports in the first place? Haven't you heard how unrealiable they all are whenever something happens? That tends to be a common argument in conspiracy circles. You either take them all into account or none of them, you cannot just pick and choose.

www.ntsb.gov...

Washington, D.C. - American Airlines flight 587 crashed into a Queens neighborhood because the plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs after the aircraft encountered wake turbulence, according to a final report adopted by the National Transportation Safety Board today. The Board said that contributing to the crash were characteristics of the airplane's rudder system design and elements of the airline's pilot training program.

At about 9:16 a.m. on November 12, 2001, flight 587, an Airbus A300-605R (N14053), crashed in Belle Harbor, New York shortly after taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight to Santo Domingo. All 260 people aboard the plane died, as did five persons on the ground. This is the second deadliest aviation accident in American history.

The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft seconds before ground impact, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. The Safety Board found that the first officer, who was the flying pilot, inappropriately manipulated the rudder back and forth several times after the airplane encountered the wake vortex of a preceding Boeing 747 for the second time. The aerodynamic loads placed on the vertical stabilizer due to the sideslip that resulted from the rudder movements were beyond the ultimate design strength of the vertical stabilizer. (Simply stated, sideslip is a measure of the "sideways" motion of the airplane through the air.)

The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits.

The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. His use of the rudder was not an appropriate response to the turbulence, which in itself provided no danger to the stability of the aircraft, the Board found.

As people have said before that when plane crashes they do things strange to some people.

I guess I gotta keep posting this untill you guys understand the importance of it?




911, to many lies for our Administration to remember.



[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
I guess I gotta keep posting this untill you guys understand the importance of it?

Or maybe, we can point out that a slip of the tongue of one man is not proof of something. Considering he is referring to terror attacks, maybe he meant to say brought down, rather than shot down.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by 11 11
I guess I gotta keep posting this untill you guys understand the importance of it?

Or maybe, we can point out that a slip of the tongue of one man is not proof of something. Considering he is referring to terror attacks, maybe he meant to say brought down, rather than shot down.

The Secretary of Defense of the United States of America should never "slip" when regarding the most important attack of his entire carrer. How the heck to you confuse "shot down" with anything regarding 911?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11

The Secretary of Defense of the United States of America should never "slip" when regarding the most important attack of his entire carrer. How the heck to you confuse "shot down" with anything regarding 911?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Easily done, the man is only human. Are you suggesting that because of the man's position he is inhuman and infallible?

Just like George W. Bush, this man makes mistakes because he is human. Do you think that the President of the United States should be making as much mistakes as he does? No, but he still does anyways, or do you think that he means everything purposefully?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by 11 11

The Secretary of Defense of the United States of America should never "slip" when regarding the most important attack of his entire carrer. How the heck to you confuse "shot down" with anything regarding 911?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Easily done, the man is only human. Are you suggesting that because of the man's position he is inhuman and infallible?

Just like George W. Bush, this man makes mistakes because he is human. Do you think that the President of the United States should be making as much mistakes as he does? No, but he still does anyways, or do you think that he means everything purposefully?

Shattered OUT...

He is reading from a written script on the podium he is talking at!!! Do you not see him look down and read his script?? Watch the video!

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11
He is reading from a written script on the podium he is talking at!!! Do you not see him look down and read his script?? Watch the video!

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

so if he read from a piece of paper....then it was not his fault...they do not write their own speeches....it's the typo of the writer....

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

so if he read from a piece of paper....then it was not his fault...they do not write their own speeches....it's the typo of the writer....

you people are quick to find alternate explinations but avoid the real one huh? Crap, I can sit here all day and make excuses as to why he "slipped" or why the writer made a "typo", or that "some monkey stole the script and re wrote it himself", or some bogus thing..... but I still see the real answer to it all.... someone let the truth out, instead of feeding the usual lies.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

And people like to use Bush's words about explosives being used on the Twin Towers. So it pretty much shows how frustating it can be when using the words for a person's argument.

Like for example "PULL IT"

Originally posted by deltaboy
And people like to use Bush's words about explosives being used on the Twin Towers.

So it pretty much shows how frustating it can be when using the words for a person's argument.

Like for example "PULL IT"

Yes words like PULL IT.

PULL IT apparently referring to pulling the firefighting effort out when its been proven there were no firefighters within the building after about 11am.... hmmmm

With such a large scale operation like 9/11, people tend to slip up, and this is what has happened

BeZerK

So 11 11, you mentioned that must continue to post that video on here because apparently people do not understand. I think that people see him as having made a mistake and simply disregard that video as any form of proof or foundation for conspiracy.

The video proves nothing, I've watched it over and over again. Hardly compelling evidence if evident of anything other than a man addressing people of the dangers of terrorism.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I think that people see him as having made a mistake

It is obvious that if people "see him as having made a mistake", they they didn't watch the video. He is reading from a script. I guess I gotta post it AGAIN.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by BeZerk

Yes words like PULL IT.

PULL IT apparently referring to pulling the firefighting effort out when its been proven there were no firefighters within the building after about 11am.... hmmmm

With such a large scale operation like 9/11, people tend to slip up, and this is what has happened

BeZerK

Various interviews of firefighters suggest they were still at WTC7 longer than suggested that you mentioned.