wrt to the engine, I think it was more like 800-900 yards away. The 8 mile debris field was a misquote based on the distance BY ROAD to where the furthest debris was found (over a lake I believe), not actually as the crow flies.
TAM
TAM
A lot of these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if Mr. Bush wasn't so damn secretive and was more forthcoming with evidence. Why doesn't he release more videos from the Pentagon? Why not release more photos of the whole reckage from flight 93? Being secretive is not evidence of foul play, but it is evidence of having something to hide. I have no doubt that if Gore was elected in 2000, a lot more of the evidence would have been released and people would be less quick to question what happened that day.
Wat Tyler
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 154
Then the Govt. would have been able to point to the other hijacked airliners being used as missiles, and point out the Boston ATC had said that the plane had been hijacked, and that they had therefore acted in the public's best interests by shooting it down.
(Plus, what T.A.M. said
)Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
I must be misreading your argument. This is how I interpret it.
USG : It's late on September 11th, 2001. We just shot down Flight 93 after three other hijacked airliners crashed into both WTC Towers and the Pentagon with complete loss of all passengers and crew. From now on any attempt to hijack a passenger plane is going to be assumed by everyone on board to be a suicide plan. So now we have two choices.
1) Admit we shot flight 93 down. The public is going to be afraid of flying because four planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers.
2) Cover up the shootdown. The public is going to be even more afraid of flying because three planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers AND one more planeload of people is dead because of the actions of hijackers.
We run the risk of being discovered. If/When that happens people will be suspicious of the coverup and ask if we destroyed the three other planes as well.
I don't buy it.1) Admit we shot flight 93 down. The public is going to be afraid of flying because four planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers.
2) Cover up the shootdown. The public is going to be even more afraid of flying because three planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers AND one more planeload of people is dead because of the actions of hijackers.
We run the risk of being discovered. If/When that happens people will be suspicious of the coverup and ask if we destroyed the three other planes as well.
Parky is that you, or did your schizophrenic truther side come out?
He is not being secretive. Now if the Democratic Party demanded this info to be released, and he refused, that would be secretive...not when a bunch of nutcases with no business having access to such things asks for it.
TAM
wrt to the engine, I think it was more like 800-900 yards away. The 8 mile debris field was a misquote based on the distance BY ROAD to where the furthest debris was found (over a lake I believe), not actually as the crow flies.
TAM
Yep. Amusingly, the BBC Conspiracy Files doco claimed that it was Google maps that the CTists had used to get the distance, which of course is a road route-finder, not a distance-measurer... the road distance is about 6-7 miles; as the crow flies it's less than 1. Popular Mechanics has a good refutation of this myth, including an annotated aerial photo.
Interesting point. Caving in to questions from conspiracy theorists is never a good thing. It only strengthens them. But I, personally, would like to see a photograph of all the wreckage from flight 93. And I would like to see some if not all of the pictures from the Pentagon. Just for my amusement.
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
If flight 93 was to be shot down, I doubt the pilots of 93 would have any idea that they have been locked on. Therefore, it seems that the "There is no god but allah" that jihadists say right before they kill themselves would have been a little inappropriate.
Unless commercial aircraft have the same lock-on detection as fighter jets do, but I'm not sure. I would assume though, that if they did - the FDR would probably log it when the plane is engaged by a missile.
Unless commercial aircraft have the same lock-on detection as fighter jets do, but I'm not sure. I would assume though, that if they did - the FDR would probably log it when the plane is engaged by a missile.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I do agree that the shooting down of Flight 93 is probably about the most plausible conspiracy there are about 911 but it seems unlikely this did happen. All the evidence suggests otherwise, the black voice recorder suggests otherwise and I believe that data recorder shows otherwise.
The way I see it, is if this plane was shot down then there is no reason to cover it up, there is nothing at all to be gained by covering it up.
The hijackers were on a suicide mission; their entire aim was to install fear and panic.
Had they hit their eventual target they win, had they forced the USAF to shoot down a plane full of passengers they win, had they simply slammed it into the ground they win. As soon as they took control of the aircraft, they have won, simply by virtue of the fact that the outcome of any suicide mission is to spread fear and panic.
The way I see it, is if this plane was shot down then there is no reason to cover it up, there is nothing at all to be gained by covering it up.
The hijackers were on a suicide mission; their entire aim was to install fear and panic.
Had they hit their eventual target they win, had they forced the USAF to shoot down a plane full of passengers they win, had they simply slammed it into the ground they win. As soon as they took control of the aircraft, they have won, simply by virtue of the fact that the outcome of any suicide mission is to spread fear and panic.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Part of one engine had bounced about 300 yards downhill, in the direction of the plane's travel. The plane impacted at a 40-degree angle, upside-down, at 580 mph.
The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally at impact. This would not be the case had the plane been disabled by a missile or gunfire. The plane’s roll angle corresponds to eyewitness reports:
1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO
9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts
11. Pitch angle - 40 deg down
12. Airspeed - 500 kts
13. Heading - 180 deg
14. Roll angle - 150 deg right
15. AoA - 20 deg negative
There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis. No fighter aircraft were armed and aloft in the area.
The other posters are correct. The cockpit flight recordings show that the terrorists were at the controls and brought the plane down as the passengers were attempting to enter the cockpit.
NEADS didn't learn about flight 93 until 4 minutes after it crashed. The most notice the U.S. military had of any of the hijacked planes, before they crashed, was 9 minutes.
Some resources for understanding the military response on 9/11:
The NORAD Response to 9/11 (excellent summary by Andrew Burfield with link to detailed timeline)
Vanity Fair Article on the NORAD 9/11 response with excerpts from NORAD's recordings
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
What do you hope to determine by seeing that photo?
You have.
Do you have reason to believe that the government and all the investigators are lying about what happened to flight 93 and at the Pentagon? Is there something unconvincing about the photos that have been released?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I don't know why, but you're confusing George Bush with the 9/11 investigators. Edit: And what videos from the Pentagon do you want released? The "84 videos" collected by the FBI were from security cameras all over the area, within miles. They were collected on the hope that they might show something significant, not because they were known to.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
That's not entirely accurate. The military did have authorization to act on its own against an imminent air threat, which flight 93 certainly was. On the NORAD tapes we hear Colonel Nasypany giving a "negative shoot down" order to fighters that had spotted a target near D.C. The pilots were told to get "Type, ID, tail." Good thing, because the planes they had on their radar scopes were fighters. The point is, Nasypany, not a higher-up, was legally giving the order to shoot or not to shoot.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Just to clarify...
As Gravy pointed out NEADS were not notified that UA93 had been hijacked until after it had already crashed. Furthermore, no shoot-down order was received by NEADS until after the attacks had finished.
Following sensible protocol, NEADS determined that pilots would not be issued general shoot-down authority. Instead, each individual incident would be addressed after a successful interception had been made.
None of the four aircraft were successfully intercepted on 9/11, nor would it have been realistically possible for any of them to have been successfully intercepted on 9/11. Thus the issue of a shoot-down order is entirely moot.
Data recovered from UA93's black box indicates that the passengers never got past the cockpit door, that the hijackers intentionally crashed the aircraft into the ground, and that it was functioning normally upon impact.
At 1003, when UA93 crashed, the fighter defense status is as follows:
1) A pair of F-15C Eagles from Otis ANGB, scrambled by NEADS in response to the hijacking of AA11, is flying a CAP over Manhattan
2) A pair of F-16 Falcons from Langley AFB, scrambled by NEADS in response to an incorrect report of AA11 heading to Washington DC, are flying CAP over Washington DC
3) Unarmed fighters from Selfridge Field, Michigan are being scrambled to intercept Delta 1989, a suspected hijacking.
4) Fighters from the 121st FS, based at Andrews AFB, have been scrambled by the Secret Service to maintain a CAP over Washington DC in anticipation of UA93's arrival. Although unarmed, the aircraft have been given permission to use force, and pilots are considering ramming any hijacked airliners.
None of the sets of aircraft mentioned above was anywhere near Shankesville at 1003.
-Gumboot
As Gravy pointed out NEADS were not notified that UA93 had been hijacked until after it had already crashed. Furthermore, no shoot-down order was received by NEADS until after the attacks had finished.
Following sensible protocol, NEADS determined that pilots would not be issued general shoot-down authority. Instead, each individual incident would be addressed after a successful interception had been made.
None of the four aircraft were successfully intercepted on 9/11, nor would it have been realistically possible for any of them to have been successfully intercepted on 9/11. Thus the issue of a shoot-down order is entirely moot.
Data recovered from UA93's black box indicates that the passengers never got past the cockpit door, that the hijackers intentionally crashed the aircraft into the ground, and that it was functioning normally upon impact.
At 1003, when UA93 crashed, the fighter defense status is as follows:
1) A pair of F-15C Eagles from Otis ANGB, scrambled by NEADS in response to the hijacking of AA11, is flying a CAP over Manhattan
2) A pair of F-16 Falcons from Langley AFB, scrambled by NEADS in response to an incorrect report of AA11 heading to Washington DC, are flying CAP over Washington DC
3) Unarmed fighters from Selfridge Field, Michigan are being scrambled to intercept Delta 1989, a suspected hijacking.
4) Fighters from the 121st FS, based at Andrews AFB, have been scrambled by the Secret Service to maintain a CAP over Washington DC in anticipation of UA93's arrival. Although unarmed, the aircraft have been given permission to use force, and pilots are considering ramming any hijacked airliners.
None of the sets of aircraft mentioned above was anywhere near Shankesville at 1003.
-Gumboot
I guess there is still a little conspiracy theorist inside of me who would like to see a picture of all the wreckage from the plane. If that doesn't happen, I will still believe that the plane did most likely crash there. As to the CC camera footage from the Pentagon, weren't there lots of other cameras in the area? If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But what about the footage from the Virginia DOT traffic camera. What ever happened to that? Im sure Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request but they still haven't got it. That should clearly show the plane crashing into the Pentagon. But, once again, if I am wrong, please correct me.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Just a nitpick... that's not true. Nasypany is clearly angry in the recordings that he does not have permission to fire.
In the event of a full scale attack the military establishes the SCATANA Plan, which transfers full control of US airspace to the military (a limited version of SCATANA was implemented without a few hours of the attacks). Only under SCATANA does the military have free authority to engage any hostile targets at will.
Under regular conditions, it would be illegal for NORAD to engage a civilian target.
-Gumboot
Some ECT will correct that promptly
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Traffic cameras broadcast live. The feed is not recorded. A similar thing occurred with The Pentagon security cameras - they tend to rely on "live" security - that is actual people sitting there watching the video.
One must consider what the purpose of surveillance is. If the purpose is to capture evidence of a crime being committed, it makes sense to record the feed - such as with a petrol station. However if the purpose is to give security staff situational awareness so they can PREVENT anything occurring, recording the feed is pointless.
-Gumboot