Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

On page 41 of the 9-11 commission report here (govinfo.library.unt.edu...), it says that between 0:12 and 10:18 a military aid asked the Vice President for permission to engage in combat with the flight. Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20 the President said that he had authorized a shoot down of the aircraft if necessary. here was also another plane about 5 to 10 minutes out. I think it's possible the plane could've been shot down... though, in addition to the heroic passengers and their actions.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


The story about the passangers is just that , a story.

But the flight may have been shot down , if it was there at all .

The thing is the size of the crator is pathetic for a nose dive , and even if it was shot at - it must have been oblitorated to leave a little scortch mark like that.

The answer to your question is no, Norad did not shoot down any plane. They are not equipped for that, if anything NORAD is a command and control. They do not even have the ability to fire off any missiles or any offensive capability. Track stuff, yes, coordinate between flights, yes, but push a button and fire, no.

Dick Cheney talked about this once...



I dont remember that in the official story

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I'm reading more in the official story and it says that they did not shoot down Flight 93, but, they had orders to do so and would've done it if the passengers failed. What would have been the public reaction if Flight 93 was shot down?

reply to post by JeZeus


Could the hijackers have also used their bomb and crashed (www.foxnews.com...)?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The answer to your question is no, Norad did not shoot down any plane. They are not equipped for that, if anything NORAD is a command and control. They do not even have the ability to fire off any missiles or any offensive capability. Track stuff, yes, coordinate between flights, yes, but push a button and fire, no.

NORAD is a COMMAND and CONTROL , so i think they give the order to FIRE dont you ? with permission of course.

I always though that it was shot down...but to sensitive to discuss

but then what did they do with the plane and bodies?

then i wtatched "the Event"...!!!

i guess they were transported by aliens to another place somewhere!

It's not even too sensitive.

It prolly did get shot down.

Rumsfeld said it himself.

The debris field was way too small for a shoot down. If they had been hit by a missile there would have been debris where the missile first hit, and there wasn't. The debris field was consistent with a plane that did a nose dive into relatively soft ground. The debris that was found far away was all light debris, such as magazine pages, and insulation. If a missile had hit, then there should have been either parts of engines, if it was an IR guided missile, or parts of fuselage if it was radar guided. Not necessarily big ones, but some parts.

reply to post by JeZeus

I do believe, that they would have been tracking the flight, and focused aspects of such, acting more in communication and coordination. They would have been in communcation with the bases that were in the area, leaving the decision to fire and shoot down to those commanders, than give the actual command to do such. To figure out who would have had the capacity to do such, you would need to look at the different military bases in the area to figure out which commander and base had the capacity to do such.

Originally posted by Frankenchrist

Rumsfeld said it himself.

is that the same guy that said building 7 got "pulled"?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by JeZeus

 

Could the hijackers have also used their bomb and crashed (www.foxnews.com...)?

No , we would have seen a huge crator and a lot of debri scattered around.

The recording its self is very questionable , so is fox news

Note to all, A friend of mine was a test pilot out of Edwards during 911. I will get flamed for saying this but you all can check my previous posts and I have never posted on the 911 forum nor do I pretend to know things I don't.

"Rumor" was that one of the engines from flight 93 was located several miles short of the crash site. "Rumor" is a small recovery team was sent out to retrieve it and hide the evidence. Ask yourself how it was not at the same site as the crash?

Regardless of whether or not the rumor is true one can not deny the necessity of taking a plane out that was en-route to cause mass destruction.

Personally after much analysis of the various flight paths I happen to think that the towers were not blown up by controlled munitions but by airplanes. I also happen to think that our wonderful intelligence community knew something was about to happen. I think they got the targets wrong. Bush lost a lot of friends that day......

No big conspiracy, just a bit of withheld information. And yes that is jacked up!

There was no 93. I mean seriously do you think a missile can VAPORIZE a 757?

Do you think that jet fuel can VAPORIZE a plane?
Do you think a plane can go down and just leave a hole in the ground in shanksville where supposed 93 went down?

Come on don't be naive....

Planes go down all the time and don't vaporize.

If 93 went down then there would be evidence. A plane, And possibly survivors.


You also can see the footage on youtube of the guy who lived a mile away.

A plane would never create a mushroom cloud by going down.

Or even the "Aftershock" he said he felt that day.

Now the true question is. IF there was a "93"

Where did it go? Were the people paid off?

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by Frankenchrist

Rumsfeld said it himself.

is that the same guy that said building 7 got "pulled"?

That would be Larry Silverstein, if I'm not mistaken.

reply to post by Frankidealist35




Maybe this will clear it up.



9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Watch the coroners' face at 3:15 mark.

reply to post by JrDavis


Planes have crashed in a high speed vertical dives and "disappeared" in the past. The one that I like to cite the most was a Navy A-6 that hit the ground vertically at near Mach 1. The engines were compressed to less than three feet long, and were by far the biggest portion of the plane recovered. The first crews on scene thought they were at the wrong site because there was nothing but a hole there.

Planes as large as MD-80s, and 737s have slammed into the ground nose first and left very small debris fields. They had larger pieces, because they slammed into harder ground than Flight 93 did. You aren't going to have the huge pieces that most people expect left from a nose first impact with any kind of ground though.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JrDavis

 

Planes have crashed in a high speed vertical dives and "disappeared" in the past. The one that I like to cite the most was a Navy A-6 that hit the ground vertically at near Mach 1. The engines were compressed to less than three feet long, and were by far the biggest portion of the plane recovered. The first crews on scene thought they were at the wrong site because there was nothing but a hole there.

Planes as large as MD-80s, and 737s have slammed into the ground nose first and left very small debris fields. They had larger pieces, because they slammed into harder ground than Flight 93 did. You aren't going to have the huge pieces that most people expect left from a nose first impact with any kind of ground though.

Footage or I call BULL.

Planes don't vaporize. Where do you think flight 93 was. In the stratosphere? I mean seriously.

The caspian 7908 flight that crashed in Iran :

news.bbc.co.uk...

That was a Tupolev Tu-154 , specs here :

en.wikipedia.org...

Compared to those of a 757 :

en.wikipedia.org...

...... as you can see , the Boeing 757 would have caused similar / if not more damage than the Tupolev Tu-154.