Flight 93 - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

thingstodo · 12-08-2003, 01:18 PM

I have heard a lot lately that it was shot down. I also do believe the passengers had a major uprising and would have made something happen and it would have had to go down at some point. If it was shot down, many other people may have been saved since it crashed in a remote area. That's why I lean to the shoot down theory a little.

Easytiger · 12-08-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geodaro
I don't believe it. If it was shot down, there would definately be some macho fighter-pilot out there trying to get on the cover of People magazine.

Do you really think that the pilot would be PROUD to have shot down a plane full of hosatges, no matter how many lives were saved in the long run? I doubt it. It's not the kind of thing that heroes are made of.

OzOz · 12-19-2003, 10:31 PM

Someone mentioned pieces of the Lockerbie plane being scattered all over the countryside, whereas there was nothing left of Flight 93 but a blackened hole in the ground. The Lockerbie plane disintegrated at high altitude after an explosion in the cargo hold. In the case of Flight 93, it isn't that incredible that there was nothing left of it. Remember, these aircraft were chosen by the hijackers because at this stage of their flights, they were still full of fuel - and also, it hit the ground pretty much intact. (Seismic monitoring stations recorded only one impact, not two or more.) That means, a big fire.

dylanmarsh · 12-30-2004, 02:54 PM

By now, everyone knows my feeling on this matter but I figured I would include this bit of info, just in case some of you missed it. Good 'ol Rummy is at it, again: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

Quote:

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington

Monday, December 27, 2004 Posted: 9:54 PM EST (0254 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.

fastom · 01-05-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzOz

Remember, these aircraft were chosen by the hijackers because at this stage of their flights, they were still full of fuel.

Actually i thought the "hijackers" chose them because they were capable of being remotely controlled.

Carno · 01-06-2005, 12:39 PM

What I don't understand is why yall think that shooting a plane down would make less debris than a plane going down in a field.. When you shoot a plane down in midair, the explosion tends to scatter parts about. If the plane was shot by a missle, the plane would be in two or more parts, and two or more parts do not make one hole.

The_Dunedan · 01-07-2005, 07:09 PM

Carn:
That's the point: FL93 isn't in a single piece. The debris-trail from the plane is over 8 miles long, consistant with a midair breakup caused by a missile strike.

SaltPork · 01-21-2005, 10:27 AM

Shot down...simple as that. Debris field scattered over several miles, fighter jets scrambled with orders to shoot down civilian aircraft...hmmm. Seems pretty simple to me.

drakers · 01-26-2005, 10:46 AM

I wouldn't be surprised, but that is a long shot that it would have been shot down by our own military.

onewolf · 01-27-2005, 08:05 PM

Before it was shot down, all the passengers were killed and their kidneys harvested. The bag of kidneys was then tossed out the emergency exit with a parachute, and then the plane was shot down. The CIA got the kidneys and sold them on ebay.

12-08-2003, 01:18 PM	#41 (permalink)
thingstodo A Storm Is Coming Location: The Great White North	I have heard a lot lately that it was shot down. I also do believe the passengers had a major uprising and would have made something happen and it would have had to go down at some point. If it was shot down, many other people may have been saved since it crashed in a remote area. That's why I lean to the shoot down theory a little. __________________ If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves. Stangers have the best candy.

12-19-2003, 10:31 PM	#43 (permalink)
OzOz Psycho Location: Right here, right now.	Someone mentioned pieces of the Lockerbie plane being scattered all over the countryside, whereas there was nothing left of Flight 93 but a blackened hole in the ground. The Lockerbie plane disintegrated at high altitude after an explosion in the cargo hold. In the case of Flight 93, it isn't that incredible that there was nothing left of it. Remember, these aircraft were chosen by the hijackers because at this stage of their flights, they were still full of fuel - and also, it hit the ground pretty much intact. (Seismic monitoring stations recorded only one impact, not two or more.) That means, a big fire. __________________ Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

01-21-2005, 10:27 AM	#48 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	Shot down...simple as that. Debris field scattered over several miles, fighter jets scrambled with orders to shoot down civilian aircraft...hmmm. Seems pretty simple to me. __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

01-06-2005, 12:39 PM	#46 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	What I don't understand is why yall think that shooting a plane down would make less debris than a plane going down in a field.. When you shoot a plane down in midair, the explosion tends to scatter parts about. If the plane was shot by a missle, the plane would be in two or more parts, and two or more parts do not make one hole.

01-07-2005, 07:09 PM	#47 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Carn: That's the point: FL93 isn't in a single piece. The debris-trail from the plane is over 8 miles long, consistant with a midair breakup caused by a missile strike.

01-26-2005, 10:46 AM	#49 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	I wouldn't be surprised, but that is a long shot that it would have been shot down by our own military.

01-27-2005, 08:05 PM	#50 (permalink)
onewolf Tilted	Before it was shot down, all the passengers were killed and their kidneys harvested. The bag of kidneys was then tossed out the emergency exit with a parachute, and then the plane was shot down. The CIA got the kidneys and sold them on ebay.