Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

The plane did not have a large debris filed because the jets that were sent were not armed with ATA missiles but a nose gun. F-16's carry a 20 mm Gatling gun that would have been used to disable the plane and render it unflyable.

There would be no need to shoot it down with a missile like the movies. This is why I have always believed that there was a larger debris fields based on early hits with a 20mm and pieces that may have fallen off as the plane descended.

There are eyewitness accounts that it rolled over. That would seem to me that a pilot could not steady an aircraft with losing an engine and lost control and ditched it. Add a story and a lets roll tag and you have a solid and shut case.

Rummy messed up but it was Minetas testimony that put the nail in the coffin.

reply to post by esdad71


If Flight 93 was shot down

Why is ther no evidence on the Flight recorders - every thing was
still operating until impact - engines, flight controls showed no damage


As would be debris trail back along flight path

For example UNITED 232, DC 10, July 19, 1989

During flight from Denver to Chicago then to Philadelphia a turbine fan
in one of the three engine disintergrated - fragments flew through the
nacell and severed the hydraulic lines disabling flight controls. Pilots
were able to gain some control by varyingf engine thrust - enough to
reach Sioux City Iowa airport. Unfortunately plane crashed on landing killing over 100 passengers (174 passengers and 10 flight crew survived)

Investigators were able to recover the entire fan disk from fragments
along the flight path

Several farmers living northeast of the city reported finding various parts of the aircraft on their properties.

Investigators were able to recover the aircraft's tailcone as well as half of the fan containment ring. Also found were fan blade fragments and parts of the hydraulic lines. Three months after the accident, two pieces of the engine fan disk were found in the fields near where the first pieces were located. Together the pieces made up nearly the entire fan disk assembly. Two large fractures were found in the disk, indicating overstress failure. Metallurgical examination showed that the primary fracture had resulted from a fatigued section on the inside diameter of the disk.

Now why were there no pieces of debris recovered from outside the impact
scene?

reply to post by thedman


There was a wreckage field over 7 miles wide/long. I am not sure what you mean. My train of thought is that a pilot who is trained to take off and land each day is more apt to be cool under pressure. The men who executed 9/11 were trained to take control and fly it into a specific location. This is a much different scenario than a career pilot.

If you would like to see more please read this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the shootdown theory I belive it is disinformation meant to discredit truth seekers.

Why in your opinion would a shoot down theory disrespect the truthers?

I do not follow that train of thought regarding that.

There was not a sufficient amount of physical evidence at Shanksville to reach the conclusion that a large commercial airliner impacted at the alleged location of loss. In addition, several of the first responders on the scene made statements where they were quite shocked that an aircraft had allegedly crashed at the location. Naturally, their conclusions were also based on a lack of physical evidence.

Pursuant to the limited amount of evidence which has been released, this post is most likely correct. Both stories are a distraction.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


True there is not a lot of large debris. I just never thought of my position as being disingenious to seeking the truth. There is enough evidence and a large debris field (small in size that is) consistant with an impact. Plus the recording played at the Zachirias trial which according to those who heard it sounded like the plane had been breeched or holed. That to me, is enough to conclude that it was possibly shot down.

The suggestion that the aircraft didn't crash in Shanksville or was not shot down remains a theory I want to further look into but reading this thread there is no proposed alternative explanantion as to what became of it based on the thread title.



clarification

[edit on 19-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


You gotta love the people that come to the game late, not realizing they are posting garbage. First you should do some research on Donn De Grand-Pre (he shows up on a few phony veterans sites). Second, try turning off Alex Jones. Third, check out Col Gibney, the man who supposedly shot down Flight 93.

He was definitely in the air that day, flying a two-seater F-16D....and transporting Ed Jacoby, director of the New York State Emergency Management office from Montana back to New York.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

You gotta love the people that come to the game late, not realizing they are posting garbage. First you should do some research on Donn De Grand-Pre (he shows up on a few phony veterans sites). Second, try turning off Alex Jones. Third, check out Col Gibney, the man who supposedly shot down Flight 93.

First of all, no one on here is claiming to be watching Alex Jones for their information.

Most serious Truthers depend on scientific facts, which your OS lacks.
As far as your Col Gibney, the man who “supposedly” shot down Flight 93, it is only an unproven story. Most creditable Truthers do not depend on hearsay information especially, when the sources are not creditable.

Perhaps, you should read what creditable evidence that has been uncovered under the FOIA that proves flight 93 was still airborne and the recorded piece of information "Coast Mode" radar tracking” proves flight 93 was still flying and was last recorded miles away and well over a thousand feet in altitude past the crash site, in Shanskville PA.

Originally posted by impressme

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Plus the recording played at the Zachirias trial which according to those who heard it sounded like the plane had been breeched or holed.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by mikelee]

I know a lot of people believe that the bomb that was reported to be on one of the hijackers (per statements from some of the passengers) was a fake bomb.

The fact is, that if real bombs were brought on board say similar to PAL434's (Ramzi Yousefs) bomb, the only people who would know this at this point would be the FBI or top government officials. Personally, considering the gravity of the events of the day, I think we can all agree that no one would have wanted it to come out that not only had they smuggled knives, boxcutters, and mace on board. But they had also managed to smuggle a bomb onto each of the hijacked aircraft.

That being said.

Could it be possible that the "fake bomb"(as we've been told it MUST be) was a real bomb. And like the PAL434 bomb it was a relatively weak bomb. Could it be possible that once the passengers breached the cockpit door(and with the jet already in its dive towards the earth) they detonated it, and although it was not powerful enough to blow the plane apart, maybe it cracked the aircraft's windshield or created a hole in the cockpit. Which in turn created the wind sound.

Note to Debunkers: Do not waste your energy replying, I am fully aware all of you will be totally opposed to this theory. I realize it is a weak one, with only the reports of sightings(of the hijacker carrying a bomb) being the basis for it. And the fact that it seems to be extremely easy to smuggle a bomb on board a aircraft, even today. Let alone almost a decade ago.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
First responders concluded that a large comercial airliner did not crash there untill they were TOLD by the FBI that one did.

Really? As requested by Hooper... do you care to back that up?

A similar thing happened at the Pentagon.

As stated by an eyewitness at the Pentagon, "We did not know what hit the Pentagon, we were told later it was a 757".



[edit on 20-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
First responders concluded that a large comercial airliner did not crash there untill they were TOLD by the FBI that one did.

Really? As requested by Hooper... do you care to back that up?

A similar thing happened at the Pentagon.

As stated by an eyewitness at the Pentagon, "We did not know what the Pentagon, we were told later it was a 757".

I think you must distinguish between one person at the Pentagon site, who may have not been in a position to see the Flight 77 impact the Pentagon, no being sure exactly what happened and what was involved and the statement made above that specifically states that ALL the first responders at Shanksville definitely concluded that no plane crashed there and changed their minds only after the FBI told them. Big difference.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

I fully agree with you PersonalChoice, your theory sounds quite plausible. Given that the two alleged hijackers that were in the rear of Flt93 had been "taken out"so to speak. The IED/EOD ? would have detonated in that area IMO, thus injuring/maiming Quite a few passengers/hijackers.

Originally posted by hooper
I think you must distinguish between one person at the Pentagon site, who may have not been in a position to see the Flight 77 impact the Pentagon, no being sure exactly what happened and what was involved and the statement made above that specifically states that ALL the first responders at Shanksville definitely concluded that no plane crashed there and changed their minds only after the FBI told them. Big difference.

NO actually the big question is WHO told them it was a 757 and how many other witnesses were TOLD it was a 757.

reply to post by REMISNE


Do you mean specifically that it was a 757 and not a 767 or DC8 or some other model? That was pretty much general knowledge by the end of the day on 9/11. The media was reporting that easily established fact pretty soon after the Flight numbers were found out.

I don't think any of the first responders would be able to look at a field of airplane debris, in general, and be able to determine that it was the remains of 757 in particular. If that is what you mean. I am a little confused by the statement.

But getting back to the original post. The poster stated that all the first responders dismissed the idea that they were attending to plane crash site until the FBI informed them. This is preposterous on so many levels.

Originally posted by esdad71

There are eyewitness accounts that it rolled over. That would seem to me that a pilot could not steady an aircraft with losing an engine and lost control and ditched it.

You've painted yourself into a corner.

If you believe that 93 was shot down, then you also believe that it really was 93 that crashed there. Then you also must believe that the FDR belongs to 93.

As was pointed out to you, the FDR indicates that all the systems were functioning perfectly the whole time - hydraulics, engines, electrical, etc. Even conspiracy loon John Lear pointed this out.

So just exactly what weapon can shoot down a plane, and cause zero damage to it?

The only way out of this corner is to claim that the FDR data is faked. Are you using this as your "out"?

Originally posted by PersonalChoice


Note to Debunkers: Do not waste your energy replying, I am fully aware all of you will be totally opposed to this theory. I realize it is a weak one, with only the reports of sightings(of the hijacker carrying a bomb) being the basis for it. And the fact that it seems to be extremely easy to smuggle a bomb on board a aircraft, even today. Let alone almost a decade ago.

By "debunkers" do you mean what is normally meant by that term?

Because if so, I don't think they are your main problem. Your story sounds quite plausible to me, certainly worthy of investigation. It's the hardcore TM people and "no flight 93 at Shanksville" types like Sphinx that would be more interested in refuting your claim.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by mikeleeMy own opinion is that it was shot down.

Nothing was shot down.

If a plane was shot before the crater, there would be debris leading up to the crater in which there was not.

If a plane was shot and crashed after the crater, then that would mean they would had a prior plan to stage the crater scene and that would be highly unrealistic for a number of reason, the biggest reason being it would be too hard to control where a plane would crash after shooting it down.

IMO, the shoot down rumors were a deliberate distraction to cover for no plane crashing.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by ATH911]

In one of the OP's videos one of the women at the marina at Indian Lake commented on how she thought a boat had blown up outside, and something about it looking like there was confetti raining down.

After all, there was that one news report shown in the OP, never to be broadcast again, indicating the debris field to be 3-4 miles long. It appeared like they were filming from a helicopter.

I am guessing a plane which was simply disabled in flight would have a debris field more compact and local than a plane which was obliterated by a missile...or two.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Umm there were plenty of eyewitness(let me guess gov. agents) that saw the plane nose down straight at the planet earth and the HUGE fireball that followed. I do beleive in a good theory however this is all fabrication and god help us you tube and wiki are gonna be the down fall of ATS.
Sorry if i come off strong but this is... welll just not able to be proven.
Of course the debris was not visible in the site photos they are taken after the clean up started the materials are stored in a ntsb warehouse where they reconstruct the accident this begins immediately after a crash to preserve the evidence.
I am a little peeved at the originator of this 9-11 conspiracy stuff it happened people im in NYC i seen the buildings watched them fall saw the witness testimony people like me and you not secret gov agents had freinds in the iron union cutting metal these demolition marks are a product of there torches and metal shearing due to temperature inversions.
The fact that the gov would risk getting caught killing its own this is clearly just a sad day that happened caused by folks who just dont like THE USA.
Comon sense will not allow me to beleive my freinds family and fellow citizens are involved in a conspiracy to start a war there are easier less risky ways to pick a fight.
i enjoyed the detail you provided but the sources are simply manipulators pushing Karazy ideas on the unaware or easily persuaded.
Peace great thread though i due beleive even the far stretch has a place on ATS im not trying to oust your ideas or contributions
Be Well

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This is one part of 9/11 that has most people questioning the official conspiracy that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11.

Then of course there's the big question- why on EARTH would these supposed conspirators waste their time making some fake crash site in the middle of nowhere to trick us into thinking a plane crashed there, and then turn around and cover up the fake crash site they just made to trick us? Unless you subscribe to the "hologram planes" conspiracy, we know the conspirators had two or more disposable planes under their command. Simply crash a real one there...but then again, even THAT doesn't explain why they would even bother to waste their time crashing a plane in the middle of nowhere to begin with. It served absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

Either the conspirators behind all these secret plots are a bunch of stoned teenagers who have no real goal based agenda, or, you're seeing conspiracies behind everything simply becuase you want to see conspiracies behind everything. You probably already know which one I have my money on.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
There was not a sufficient amount of physical evidence at Shanksville to reach the conclusion that a large commercial airliner impacted at the alleged location of loss.

May I ask exactly how you know there "was not a sufficient amount of physical evidence at Shanksville"? Either you were at Shanksville yourself and saw the extent of the wreckage personally, or, you're repeating what you read on some damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web site.