Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Wanna see a relatively small (compared to the B-757) F-16 get hit by a SAM? (OK, it's a computer animation....it's at about 1:12)



Years ago, but the tactics ddon't vary much, only the speeds are higher nowadays.

(Oh, and for those people who think that a quick burst from the F-16's cannon is going to result in IMMEDIATE devastation and instant destruction of a B-757, better re-think that...)

(Good stuff at about 2:25):



So, I ask again. Since we know the military was authorized to shoot down UA93, WHY would there be any attempt to "cover up"???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, I ask again. Since we know the military was authorized to shoot down UA93, WHY would there be any attempt to "cover up"???

Because of all the other things going on that day maybe the government decided to make it look like thier was a bright spot by stating passengers had taken down the plane.

reply to post by REMISNE


I never said the airplanes didnt come apart. I dont think it was shredded to itty bitty pieces either. The fact remains, that each of the airliners took out some chunks of the steel lattice upon impact...and sections of the airliners still had enough momentum to take out lattice on the other side as well. Just as Flight 77 had enough velocity to penetrate the reinforced outer wall and continue through.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, I ask again. Since we know the military was authorized to shoot down UA93, WHY would there be any attempt to "cover up"???

Because of all the other things going on that day maybe the government decided to make it look like thier was a bright spot by stating passengers had taken down the plane.

I don't follow that logic - really. If all of 9/11 is a fake then the powers that be knew exactly what was going to happen and when and where to Flight 93. The Flight had to be under their control correct? If the flight wasn't under the control of the "Powers" then who was controlling it and why shoot it down? And if it was shot down then it really did crash in Shanksville and the wreckage is real, the impact site is real and the DNA is real.

reply to post by REMISNE


20 MM rounds, in the right spots, MIGHT cause enough damage to put an airliner down. Provided the airliner is flying relatively stable. Flight 93 was not.....so unless Davy Crockett was flying the F-16, chances are you could empty every last training round into the jet and not put it down.

While I do not know how the weapons loaders took care of those F-16s, I know our loaders rarely fill the gun drum to capacity when using training rounds.

We also have an engine core that was far from the impact site

You have an engine core that came off of the airplane and rolled to its resting place...leaving pieces of it along the way. Not to mention had an air to air missile hit that engine, you wouldnt have found that big a piece anyway.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by REMISNE


Uh huh.....

So, just to satisfy the "need" for solace, this incredible "fake" story of the passengers uprising and rebellion was cooked up by the U.S. Government??? Incredulous is haordly the owrd to use in responding to that.

Since, there exists the CVR, with the SOUNDS of the shouting and commotion just aft of the cockpit door. The hijackers DISCUSSING (in Arabic) what is going on, as one is standing there, and looking through the peephole in the door.

The idiots even tell him to "show the axe"

Believe me, NO ONE in the government, trying to make this up, would have thought of such a stupid thing to add!!!!!

(Hint: To imagine how ridiculous it would be to "show them the axe", think about how useful it would be to hold a gun at the peephole of a hotel room door....from the INSIDE....in order to frighten a person standing in the hallway).

(Oh...and the axe...certianly, by now, I hope everyone realizes that EVERY commercial passenger jet is equipped with a small emergency axe onboard. It's just over a foot or so in length, and is stowed in the cockpit).

OK, so we have the CVR, as mentioned above. The FDR, showing all systems on the airplane operating normally UNTILL everything ends at the same time, on impact.

NO system failures, from cannon fire.

NO engine failures (from cannon fire).

NO flight attitude changes, other than those indicated, and agreeing with, control surface deflections, and control wheel movement.

Finally, back to the CVR...

NO sounds of ANY sort to indicate that the airplane had been struck by "friendly fire", not from an F-16, nor anything else.

Originally posted by hooper
And if it was shot down then it really did crash in Shanksville and the wreckage is real, the impact site is real and the DNA is real.

I never stated 9/11 was fake.

The Government did have prior warnings that something was going to happen involving hijackings.

Yes and Yes.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by TwoPhish

Even if it were 'terrorists' (which is not the case but.....) how can they penetrate us if we're so well guarded. protected and defended? It's rubbish. I can't get on a friggin airplane with a nail clipper but all these clever terrorists manage to not only get one board with devices (box-cutters) but..........cause so much ground damage too!!!!! Simply amazing!

And on the morning of 9/11/01, you could get on an airliner with pocketknives, nail clippers, blades less than 3 inches in length etc.

It was only after that day that they closed the door on those items.

Then you mention Osama being run by the CIA...that lie has been demolished more times than I can begin to remember.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

MIGHT cause enough damage to put an airliner down.

Yeah, wondered about that, too.

Lucky hit on an engine...well, so the engine fails. (OK, the hijackers might have had a hard time, unless they had a multi-engine rating).

Hit a fuel line? Big Bang! (Lucky shot).

Hydraulic line? System is redundant, three ways.

Tear off a big enough portion of the wing?? ("Perforate" it, it breaks away)OK, now lift problems, one wing (intact) provides more lift, causes control issues, as airplane wants to roll. MORE hydrauclics and fuel lines ruptured, so end would also happen quickly from there.

Take out the horizontal stab, and the nose pitches DOWN very soon after. Horizontal needed for pitch control.

But....no SOUNDS, no other indications either.

Every "imagineering" thought has gone into this, and all signs continue to point to what was learned from the CVR and FDR, what was shown on the radar tapes, what few witnesses there were (guy in a Piper Cherokee, for instance. Did NOT see the crash, but the airplane a few minutes prior, in flight). etc.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You have an engine core that came off of the airplane and rolled to its resting place...leaving pieces of it along the way.

Oh so now the engine core rolled there instead of being blown there by the intial explosion. I wish you guys would make up your minds.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then you mention Osama being run by the CIA...that lie has been demolished more times than I can begin to remember.

The CIA backed OBL during the Afgan war. Please do some research.

reply to post by REMISNE


I've never said anything different in regards to that engine. It came off when Flight 93 hit the ground....as supported by both the physical evidence and the data recorders.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I've never said anything different in regards to that engine. It came off when Flight 93 hit the ground....as supported by both the physical evidence and the data recorders.

But others have stated that it was blown there, so who are we supposed to believe?

reply to post by REMISNE


BZZZT wrong answer once again.

There were TWO distinct groups of people fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. One group, were that Afghanis, that were supported by the United States. The other group were mainly Arab Muslims that were supported by Osama.

Bin Ladin, meanwhile, had expoused anti-American positions since 1982, and thanks to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction business had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding

A source familiar with bin Ladin's organisation explains that bin Ladin "never had any relations with America or American officials... He was saying very early in the 1980's that the next battle is going to be with America... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Ladin from Americans." A senior offical unequivocally says that "bin Ladin never met with the CIA."

Moreover, the Afghan Arabs demonstrated a pathological dislike of Westerners. Jouvenal says: "I always kept away from Arabs [in Afghanistan]. They were very hostile. They would ask, 'What are you doing in an Islamic country?" The BBC reporter John Simpson had a close call with bin Ladin himself outside Jalalabad in 1989. Travelling with a group of Arab mujahideen, Simpson and his television crew bumped into an Arab man beautifully dressed in spotless white robes; the man began shouting at Simpson's escorts to kill the infidels, then offered a truck driver the not unreasonable sum of five hundred dollars to do the job. Simpson's Afghan escort turned down the request, and bin Ladin was to be found later on a camp bed, weeping in frustration. Only when bin Ladin became a public figure, almost a decade later, did Simpson realise who the mysterious Arab was who had wanted him dead

Holy War, Inc by Peter Bergen

From an interview with British journalist Robert Fisk in 1996....

bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...

reply to post by REMISNE


I speak for myself, and my own research. I do not pretend to speak for anyone else...











DISCLAIMER: I post this only in the event that a certain poster decides to link a facetious post I made a couple years ago calling myself the "Lord High Debunker"

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
[BZZZT wrong answer once again.

Thats funny a lot of sites and agencies say otherwise.

reply to post by REMISNE


Well, lets see some of these creditable sources then. I am always open to new information.

What we all need to do is visit Iron Mountain and look at the evidence from the Shanksville crash site for ourselves.





[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee

What we all need to do is visit Iron Mountain and look at the evidence from the Shanksville crash site for ourselves.

How so? I do not see how this would resolve anything for the dedicated conspiracist.

I mean if you believe the US government is capable of staging this elaborate magic trick then how could seeing misc. plane scraps resolve anything? If you are willing to believe them when you see them, why not just trust UAL that they have them? Even if you are allowed to handle and examine them, what would you possibly look for? Numbers? To check against what? Records that were created and maintained by the very people you suspect of creating the hoax in the first place?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ProRipp

 

I guess the most curious thing to me is how conspiracy believers like to apply "common sense" to things like airplane crashes and building collapses. Exactly how many people are "commonly" confronted with these experinces wherein they can develop a common knowledge? How did you develop your baseline from which you were able to deduce that these things are extraordinary?

How many people are commonly confronted by a government of the money, by the money and for the money?

Oh.. All of us.. except those still in the federal trance...

You will see what we tell you that you saw...After all, We are the experts...and we hold all the strings, now dance, monkey, dance... and maybe Ill still give you your foodstamps..