Flight 93

[Longinius 1]

I found this site

http://www.flight93crash.com

Can anyone find a site that counters the arguments listed on the site above?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Waiting for Avon

[Supah 0]

Didnt you post a similar thread about there being no plane that crashed in to the pentagon and didnt avon prove you wrong? isnt this just the same. Another conspiracy theory.

[LordZach 0]

well umm a missile would have made it crash differently than it did (i believe nose pretty much just slammed into the ground)

[Supah 0]

The F-16 claim seems resonable but at that time it wasnt clear what the jets were doing and with out there (yet) being a hint at what the jet was on its way to do it seems farfetched the F-16 was ordered  to fire on a commercial airliner that was, for all they knew, hijacked to get money.

The owner of this site obviously isnt really all that knowledgable about combat aircraft as he makes the suggestion a A-37 Dragonfly shot down the airliner. That is about the least suited airplane to hunt down an airliner. I believe it would have serious difficulties even catching up with an airliner let alone use its guns to shoot one down.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I guess that depends on where a missile hits a plane. If you hit the right spot it surely comes down nosewards.

[Longinius 1]

"Didnt you post a similar thread about there being no plane that crashed in to the pentagon and didnt avon prove you wrong? isnt this just the same. Another conspiracy theory."

Avon didnt prove me wrong. I never said I supported that theory. She did however provide links to sites that provided other facts to dispute the site I first found. And yes, it is a conspiracy theory. That does not mean it has to be wrong however.

[Supah 0]

Still an airliner isnt all that strong and i think it would pretty much come apart if hit by lets say an AMRAAM. Though a AIM-9 might just take out an engine and a large part of its control surfaces.

[Supah 0]

It doesnt automatically make it wrong if its a conspiiracy theory but statiscally speaking they are almost always false. Looking at his authors less then optimal knowledge of military aviation and the general tone of the artical i am more inclined to catergorize this as yet another false conspiracy theory with no real substance.

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ April 09 2002,02:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still an airliner isnt all that strong and i think it would pretty much come apart if hit by lets say an AMRAAM. Though a AIM-9 might just take out an engine and a large part of its control surfaces.<span id='postcolor'>

that's the point it didn't come apart it crashed nose down pretty much straight into the ground. now i'm no AAM expert but to me it seems like if it was hit with a missile it would still have forward velocity going enough to not crash nose first.

[Hilandor 1]

i would have thought that with a terrorist hellbent on slamming a plane into a building, will probably head in nose first too for maximum damage

[Guest]

Hmm.. yes, I remember this one very well. On the news the first thing was that they reported that it had been intercepted and shot down. Later they canged that to that the cause of crash was unknown. A couple of day laters there was a fairy tale about how the heroic passangers took control over the plane.

Unlike the Pentagon case, I believe the conspiracy theory on this one.

[foxer 0]

I believe if they didn't have video of the wtc getting hit by planes,Soemone would make a theory about it.

[Longinius 1]

There is a theory about it Foxer, allthough it has more to do about who did the actual hi-jacking and not wether it were planes or not.

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 09 2002,04:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe if they didn't have video of the wtc getting hit by planes,Soemone would make a theory about it.<span id='postcolor'>

a bunch of arabs are still saying the jews did it

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 09 2002,04:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm.. yes, I remember this one very well. On the news the first thing was that they reported that it had been intercepted and shot down. Later they canged that to that the cause of crash was unknown. A couple of day laters there was a fairy tale about how the heroic passangers took control over the plane.

Unlike the Pentagon case, I believe the conspiracy theory on this one.<span id='postcolor'>

yes and they also reported another plane was flying up the potomic after the pentagon attack. i think the media was kind of in a frenzy that day. they could have said a bunch of x-wings shot up south africa and people would start believing it. what i believe is based on what the reports say, not some guy with a website and 8 hour tapes of the conspiracy zone

[Oligo 1]

Ehh, I'd like to point out that AAMs have fragmentation warheads with proximity fuses designed to puncture the engine compartments and fuel tanks of fighter aircraft. These babies blow up when they get close to the target. It is very often reported that the tail end of the missiles just flies onwards after warhead detonation, since the explosion isn't even strong enough to destroy the tail part (housing the engine) of the exploding missile itself!

If you shoot an airliner with an AAM, you get an airliner partly punctured with shrapnel. The holes can cause a catastrophic loss of aerodynamics and the plane breaks apart in mid air. Or the plane might just lose an engine and plow into the ground below. A lot of different outcomes are possible if an airliner gets hit by AAMs.

By the way, I laughed my ass off, when they shot AMRAAMs and Sidewinders at the UFOs in the movie Independence Day. They might as well have thrown frag hand grenades at the things.

[Supah 0]

Believe me oligo when i tell you an airliner is a hell of allot weaker then a modern fighters. There are account of AIM-7 Sparrows cutting mig-21's in half merely by hitting it. And a MiG is one of the sturdiest aircraft around. A AMRAAM can and in most instances will cut an airliner in half. Fighters are built to do hard turns and to take damage. Airliners can turn at 5 G's aerodynamicaly but the plane structure disintegrates at 3,5 G's It will not survive a hit by a AAM.

[Oligo 1]

"Believe me oligo when i tell you an airliner is a hell of allot weaker then a modern fighters. There are account of AIM-7 Sparrows cutting mig-21's in half merely by hitting it. And a MiG is one of the sturdiest aircraft around. A AMRAAM can and in most instances will cut an airliner in half. Fighters are built to do hard turns and to take damage. Airliners can turn at 5 G's aerodynamicaly but the plane structure disintegrates at 3,5 G's It will not survive a hit by a AAM."

I was saying that a lot of different outcomes are possible if an airliner meets an AAM and I am still saying that. AIM-7 with it's warhead of 40kg of high explosive rips MIG-21s apart only if the fragmentation propelled by the proximity blast causes enough loss of aerodynamics in the rather small plane. So the blast doesn't blow the plane in half, but the loss of aerodynamics.

If an AMRAAM (20kg of HE) or a Sidewinder (9kg of HE) hits an airliner (meaning blows up near an airliner due to proximity fusing), the situation is as follows: A frag effect far away from the fuselage can destroy an engine or rip out a wing. This would cause the plane to plummet nose first to the ground. If the frag effect is close to the cabin, it may cause enough loss of aerodynamics to initiate a total shredding. Thus, different things can happen.

Besides, I doubt they would fire AMRAAMS at airliners inside the borders of U.S, because firing BVR shots is not too accurate. So in a surgical shootdown situation the pilot would probably have to use Sidewinders or even the cannon. Since Sidewinders have really small warheads, there is less chance of a catastrophic loss of aerodynamics.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh, I think after a crash both planes would have a hard way home!

[morbid 0]

Perhaps the pilot (hijacker) realised he was going to miss his intended target or have diffiuclty hitting it (the Whitehouse?) and so decided to go for the larger target (the Pentagon).

Because he made this decision so late he might have had to nosedive in order to hit it.