The 9/11 Flight 93 'crash'

[Sgt_Shligger]

Now a conspiracy with evidence >_>

I can't recall where/what the terrorists planned to bomb but I'm more concerned about the crash. Now there is evidence supporting both sides of this so I really can't choose.

The story said something about the passengers invading the cockpit and causing the plane to crash. Now, there is really little evidence to support this and no way to prove that they actually reached the cockpit at all.
There were explosions reported from bystanders.

Air traffic controllers reported an F-16 jet was circling Flight 93 and was within viewing range at the crash time. Eye witnesses say that the plane was smoking or on fire before it crashed.



I'd write more but it's late. The idea is plausible but I find it hard to believe that the goverment would do this. Although I find it easy to believe they would cover it up. My opinion is divided. . . More evidence needed >_>

[Roffkaiser]

I am guessing that you are saying a F-16 shot a missle at it? That is entirely possible, but I doubt the people who's families were on the plane would be so silent if that had happened. Not to mention eye witnesses wouldn't say the plane was smoking or on fire before it crashed if it had been hit with a missle....considering a missle would have probably taken off the rear quarter of the plane, or a wing, not something you describe as mildly as "on fire".

Totally possible but unlikely, though much more possible than all that "Bush brought down the towers" BS.

[space_butler]

here, you dropped this. *passes tin foil hat*

[Solstis]

Even if an f-16 shot down the plane, it was probably to make sure it didn't make it anywhere dangerous.

By the way, Eye Witnesses are probably the least reliable source.

[Parn]

I recommend reading this (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?view=story&id=news/aw090971.xml).

[Sgt_Shligger]

Well, there is no missle on an F-16 that can shatter a 747. It could have been the cause of an engine coming off though. As I said, this is plausible but highly unlikely.

[space_butler]

its as plausible as me taking over the world using nothing but a toothpick and a small kitten.

[Blitzkommando]

On 2006-08-27 13:20, SgtShligger wrote:
Well, there is no missle on an F-16 that can shatter a 747. It could have been the cause of an engine coming off though. As I said, this is plausible but highly unlikely.


Rapid decompression do you know it? A tiny hole in a plane can cause it to rip appart, let alone a missile designed to take down aircraft causing even greater results. It's a passenger airliner. It's not designed to withstand an explosive impact. Had it been shot at by an ATA missile it wouldn't have been in a single piece it would've been blasted to pieces mid-air. If the missile itself didn't cause it, the flames and the fuel combination would've. The theory is as plausible as a man swallowing an armed pinapple grenade and surviving.

The simple fact of the matter is the passengers on board did do something onboard that resulted in the aircraft failing to be used as a missile. Whether they made it to the pilot's cabin doesn't change the end result.