Was flight 93 possibly shot down? - Page 2

motivez · 12-28-2006, 06:14 PM

I never said they registered anything. Why would I bother defending a position I have never taken?

7960 · 12-28-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I never said they registered anything. Why would I bother defending a position I have never taken?

my bad, I got from your posts that you thought it was shot down

motivez · 12-28-2006, 08:07 PM

Nope.

I just don't know the science behind the idea that an earthquake monitor wouldn't pick up an explosion above ground.

Diesel66 · 12-28-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Nope.

I just don't know the science behind the idea that an earthquake monitor wouldn't pick up an explosion above ground.

50-100lbs of explosive at 10,000-20,000ft above the ground ?

7960 · 12-28-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

50-100lbs of explosive at 10,000-20,000ft above the ground ?

it was lower than that, and seismic sensors pick up sonic booms from supersonic planes...that's one of the "evidences" that "enthusiasts" use when claiming the air force has a new plane it's keeping secret.

These "skyquake" are a continuing phenomenon, with the most recent report over Orange County, CA coming on 20 July 1996. It is reported that the "quake" occurred around 3pm PST, fitting the "skyquake" pattern in the following respects:

1. It occurred in a coastal area.
2. Described as similar to an earthquake in some respects (rattling of loose objects, etc) but also like a boom (but no distinct double bang as far as is known).
3. Severe enough to light up government and media switchboards, but no known damage.
4. Not an earthquake (CalTech sensors saw nothing)
5. Local military bases deny any knowledge.
6. No known other source (eg explosion)

Mystery Aircraft - Aurora

Diesel66 · 12-28-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

it was lower than that, and seismic sensors pick up sonic booms from supersonic planes...that's one of the "evidences" that "enthusiasts" use when claiming the air force has a new plane it's keeping secret.
4. Not an earthquake (CalTech sensors saw nothing)

That just counterdicted what you said.

motivez · 12-29-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

. . .counterdicted. . .

7960 · 12-29-2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

That just counterdicted what you said.

I've been askifying questionations.

What statementificant did that posteration counterdict?

AVengeance · 12-29-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I've been askifying questionations.

What statementificant did that posteration counterdict?

Diesel66 · 12-29-2006, 08:48 PM

all of you

jat1317 · 01-15-2007, 07:21 PM

Thanks for the welcome.
I didn't mean just the window was found, sorry to confuse. I just meant a part of the place with the window in it.
Also the flight data recorder and black box were found somewhere around 25 to 45 feet inside the crater. So that alone tells you how hard it hit.
I encourage everyone to visit the memorial if they can, its an awsome and humbeling experience.

Donkey® · 01-16-2007, 12:08 PM

A plane that is shot down doesn't land almost entirely into one crater. The amount of debris (not just the small amount that actually happened) would be spread over many miles. Also, it would serve no purpose for the government to lie about it. If they shoot the plane down, not a single person would question that call. If they don't shoot the plane down, only conspiracy theorists question the story.

6SpeedTA95 · 01-16-2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's possible, but very very unlikely. The plane was traveling so fast when it hit the ground that I think the minimal amount of wreckage was probably normal..

Thats correct, all of the analysis I've seen of the crash suggest just that.

AVengeance · 01-17-2007, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

A plane that is shot down doesn't land almost entirely into one crater. The amount of debris (not just the small amount that actually happened) would be spread over many miles. Also, it would serve no purpose for the government to lie about it. If they shoot the plane down, not a single person would question that call. If they don't shoot the plane down, only conspiracy theorists question the story.

First, people DID claim to see debris quite a distance away from the crash site. Second, when you shoot a plane down, it's not like in the action movies where it necessarily BURSTS ASUNDER.

Not saying one way or another, though. And like I said in the previous post in this thread, it really doesn't matter. IF it had been shot down, would they really have wanted to say that it was? Best to keep it a secret, and make up some hero story to make everyone patriotic.

ballz2wallz · 01-17-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

A plane that is shot down doesn't land almost entirely into one crater. The amount of debris (not just the small amount that actually happened) would be spread over many miles.

I think how much debris and what area it covers depends on many things; velocity, angle of impact, etc. You cannot make such general statements regarding such issues.

Donkey® · 01-17-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

First, people DID claim to see debris quite a distance away from the crash site. Second, when you shoot a plane down, it's not like in the action movies where it necessarily BURSTS ASUNDER.

I am not saying "BURSTS ASUNDER". I am saying MORE debris than what was found would have been the case...spread out over miles. That doesn't indicate it blowing to pieces...it indicates a damaged plane loses pieces over a vast amount of airspace until it hits the ground.

Donkey® · 01-17-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think how much debris and what area it covers depends on many things; velocity, angle of impact, etc. You cannot make such general statements regarding such issues.

Well, fortunately for me, all that information is known based on the conclusions of investigators and the tools they used to determine such things. Thanks.

JaJae · 01-17-2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am not saying "BURSTS ASUNDER". I am saying MORE debris than what was found would have been the case...spread out over miles. That doesn't indicate it blowing to pieces...it indicates a damaged plane loses pieces over a vast amount of airspace until it hits the ground.

Not really. The plane was traveling 580mph at impact. That means in order for it to have traveled a mile it would have been airborne for roughly 5 seconds. Things drop at 9.8 meters per second. which means the impact must have shot it up in the air roughly 25 meters or so in order to make an arc of a one mile distance. I think at the velocity the plane was traveling it's not unlikely parts went much further than that. But then again it's pretty hard to tell since I don't know the angle of impact, weight of the plane, etc. Overall it's just physics, and very easy to see that a plane crashing into the earth at 600 mph is going to leave debris over a large area.

Donkey® · 01-17-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not really. The plane was traveling 580mph at impact. That means in order for it to have traveled a mile it would have been airborne for roughly 5 seconds. Things drop at 9.8 meters per second. which means the impact must have shot it up in the air roughly 25 meters or so in order to make an arc of a one mile distance. I think at the velocity the plane was traveling it's not unlikely parts went much further than that. But then again it's pretty hard to tell since I don't know the angle of impact, weight of the plane, etc. Overall it's just physics, and very easy to see that a plane crashing into the earth at 600 mph is going to leave debris over a large area.

It was in a nosedive at the time...of course it's going to be at maximum speed at that time. It wasn't going that fast at the time it was "cruising" which would have been the time it was shot down.