1211 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 17 April 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Regarding the shootdown of 93, does anybody claiming that to be a fact have any evidence regarding that?  Would anybody hazard a guess as to what kind of missle would have been used, and what part of the airplane was struck by that missle?  

Well, an F-16, say, would seem to be a reasonable suggestion; whatever Air Defense squadron was on active alert at the time. I don't know if anyone's claiming it to be a fact; it's just a hypoethtical scenario. The point with that idea, of course, would be that it might account for the absence of much in the way of large debris at the crash site, but on the other hand it would probably mean that debris would be scattered over a very wide area, which would have been impossible for even the most assiduous forces of the State to collect it all.

[frenat]

747400, on 17 April 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

Well, an F-16, say, would seem to be a reasonable suggestion; whatever Air Defense squadron was on active alert at the time. I don't know if anyone's claiming it to be a fact; it's just a hypoethtical scenario. The point with that idea, of course, would be that it might account for the absence of much in the way of large debris at the crash site, but on the other hand it would probably mean that debris would be scattered over a very wide area, which would have been impossible for even the most assiduous forces of the State to collect it all.

I would actually go the other way.  IF it was shot down they would likely have used an AIM-9, or heatseeking, missle due to the need to get a visual ID first.  I know of no pilot that would even think of shooting down a civilian airliner without a positive ID.  The AIM-9 is short range and would home on the engine, leaving the majority of the plane intact.

[booNyzarC]

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

It is in the article and it says it was Wally Miller, not me.

I would ask you for your source your claim that it was 300 yards away, but that is not a considerable distance, so it must have been further or a surprising distance for them to have suggest it was a considerable distance in one article and 2000 yards away in another article.

Alright.  Well if you want to rely on Wally Miller's word for where it was found, you need not look any further.  Watch until about the 5:08 mark (less than a minute and a half total).

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 17 April 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Rafterman

I am certain that your friend was what he was, as you say.  And he might be dead.  Obviously I don't know.  Obviously my theory is EXACTLY that, a theory.  It is possible that some on the list were killed, it is possible that they were all killed, but I doubt it.

One of the flight attendants onboard was from my home town.  I know at least 3 people who knew her in high school.  Whether she is dead or not, I don't know.  I do know that her widower took the kids and moved away.

OK, copy you don't like the term "pennsylvania coal country". Don't know why, but can imagine.  Call it what you want.  The site was in PA, and it was the site of a coal mine.  Have it your way on the semantics.

I certainly know quite a few people who understand the official story to be a damn lie, but I would not really call them conspiracists.  Most of those people SIMPLY understand it to be a lie, from WTC to the Pentagon.  Nobody else I know off hand holds any sort of theory as to what became of the 'passengers'.  Understanding that we are the victims of a hoax DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that one must have some airtight theory about what actually happened.

It's quite enough for the average person to simply understand that a hoax was played out on the american people, which brought 2 wars with no end and a brutal assault on the US Constitution.

Most folks have no opinion about the pax.  Mine is just a theory.

So you're backing away from your previous claims - noted.

Sorry, but you simply cannot disregard the fate of the passengers and whether you like it or not, they are  significant component to the events of that day.  They were either killed in a terrorist attack, killed by the American government, or they're in hiding.

[Babe Ruth]

Rafterman

Interesting to read that you consider it possible that the pax are in hiding.

The fate of the 'heroic' passengers is an appeal to the emotions, as you demonstrate with your post.  A Hollywood movie made for TV reinforces that.  I personally don't care about the pax, because my guess is that they are part of the charade.  My cynical guess is that they are still alive, but that's just a guess.  If they are dead, I'm sorry about that, but there is nothing I can do about it.

747

In its June 3, 2002 issue, AW&ST reported that crews of the 119 FW from Fargo N.D.--which had been pulling NORAD alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down UA93 if it came toward the capital city.  They were flying F-16s.  Does not mention missle types, but FRENAT is correct in his analysis--heat seekers would go to the engine exhaust only.

The story was floated that day that it WAS shot down, and I certainly believed that story for a period of time. So did the guy I spent the whole day with watching it unfold on TV, and he was a former Navy fighter jock.  Eventually(maybe a year or 2 later) a pilot was named (don't have those notes) who might have done it.  Innuendo, and it did make it to certain portions of the MSM.

As Frenat observed, if 93 had been hit with AIM 9 or other heat seeker, the airplane would have kept flying on its remaining engine.

They even worked that into 1 story, explaining that the passengers on their magical cellphones had observed smoke in the cabin, which I suppose would happen if 1 engine were taken out by AIM type missle.

Oh, the web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...

Edited by Babe Ruth, 18 April 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[booNyzarC]

It is rare that I feel like punching someone in the face.

[Babe Ruth]

...especially somebody you've never met in real life, eh?

That's one helluvan argument there Boo.  

[booNyzarC]

I wasn't making an argument.  I was expressing an inclination.  You should be capable of recognizing the difference if you were actually an English major.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

Rafterman

Interesting to read that you consider it possible that the pax are in hiding.

The fate of the 'heroic' passengers is an appeal to the emotions, as you demonstrate with your post.  A Hollywood movie made for TV reinforces that.  I personally don't care about the pax, because my guess is that they are part of the charade.  My cynical guess is that they are still alive, but that's just a guess.  If they are dead, I'm sorry about that, but there is nothing I can do about it.

747

In its June 3, 2002 issue, AW&ST reported that crews of the 119 FW from Fargo N.D.--which had been pulling NORAD alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down UA93 if it came toward the capital city.  They were flying F-16s.  Does not mention missle types, but FRENAT is correct in his analysis--heat seekers would go to the engine exhaust only.

The story was floated that day that it WAS shot down, and I certainly believed that story for a period of time. So did the guy I spent the whole day with watching it unfold on TV, and he was a former Navy fighter jock.  Eventually(maybe a year or 2 later) a pilot was named (don't have those notes) who might have done it.  Innuendo, and it did make it to certain portions of the MSM.

As Frenat observed, if 93 had been hit with AIM 9 or other heat seeker, the airplane would have kept flying on its remaining engine.

They even worked that into 1 story, explaining that the passengers on their magical cellphones had observed smoke in the cabin, which I suppose would happen if 1 engine were taken out by AIM type missle.

Oh, the web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...

Heat seekers, at least the newer ones, CAN lock onto the heat of the skin of the airplane from air friction but the easier lock would be to an engine.  At that time they still had AIM-9L missiles too which were less capable than the AIM-9X they use today.  They also might have had AIM-7's or AIM-120's but both are long range radar missles and not designed for a visual kill.  A radar missile would home toward center of mass.  

I did NOT say it would continue flying on one engine.  Do not try to put words in my mouth.  I said it would leave the majority of the plane intact.  The impact/explosion would likely remove part of the wing as well.  They would certainly crash but the majority of the wreackage would be together with perhaps an engine and most of a wing greatly separated, unlike the lightweight debris we know was separated somewhat from the crash.  I have not seen any reason to think 93 was shot down, nor was 77.

Edited by frenat, 18 April 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[booNyzarC]

blah, nevermind.

Edited by booNyzarC, 18 April 2012 - 03:11 AM.

[Dis Pater]

According to some of the reading i have been doing whilst looking into things,says that the 3 F-16s that were scrambled to intercept UA93 were not armed and intended to bang into the plane in order to bring it down.I'm aware that this could have been discussed and dismissed before and if it has you can ignore this post.

one of a few sites

My link

Edited by Dis Pater, 18 April 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

In its June 3, 2002 issue, AW&ST reported that crews of the 119 FW from Fargo N.D.--which had been pulling NORAD alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down UA93 if it came toward the capital city.

  

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

In its June 3, 2002 issue, AW&ST reported that crews of the 119 FW from Fargo N.D.--which had been pulling NORAD alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down UA93 if it came toward the capital city.  They were flying F-16s.  Does not mention missle types, but FRENAT is correct in his analysis--heat seekers would go to the engine exhaust only.

The F-16s were not armed with missiles nor live ammunition. In fact, the pilots stated that the only way they could have stopped United 93 was to ram into the B-757, so here is another prime example where the 9/11 Truthers started another false conspiracy senario, a long list of many, because they didn't bother to follow-up on the original story.

Quote

F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney, one of the first two combat pilots in the air that morning, was told to stop it.The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft. Except her own plane. So that was the plan. Because the surprise attacks were unfolding, in that innocent age, faster than they could arm war planes, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.

“We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney recalls of her charge that day. “I would essentially be a kamikaze pilot.” For years, Penney, one of the first generation of female combat pilots in the country, gave no interviews about her experiences on Sept. 11 (which included, eventually, escorting Air Force One back into Washington’s suddenly highly restricted airspace).

But 10 years later, she is reflecting on one of the lesser-told tales of that endlessly examined morning: how the first counterpunch the U.S. military prepared to throw at the attackers was effectively a suicide mission.

My link

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

As Frenat observed, if 93 had been hit with AIM 9 or other heat seeker, the airplane would have kept flying on its remaining engine.

They even worked that into 1 story, explaining that the passengers on their magical cellphones had observed smoke in the cabin, which I suppose would happen if 1 engine were taken out by AIM type missle.

Really? ... Crikey. it's not like shooting it with a pistol, you know. I'm pretty sure even hitting an engine would take the wing off, at the very least.

[Obviousman]

It all depends. Let's say an accurate missle shot took out the engine.

Yes, they have another one and can fly on that. What about collateral damage?

How much did the explosion damage the structural integrity of the wing spar and surrounds?

How many hydraulic, fuel and electrical lines did shrapnel take out?

Did it depressurise the hull?

A commercial airliner is not really meant to take that sort of damage, though it has happened. DHL cargo aircraft took damage from a MPAD attack and survived... but they were very lucky.