• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

ksu_aviator said:
Sorry boss, but that video fits perfectly with the report above. The F-16 was sent out, but Flight 93 was down before they got there.
Click to expand...
You to explain the debris field.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Sorry boss, but that video fits perfectly with the report above. The F-16 was sent out, but Flight 93 was down before they got there.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't watch the video. There were reports a second debris field was blocked off 6-8 miles from the crash site. If the plane was supposedly taken over by passengers who put it into a dive, the debris field would not be all spread out over miles. The plane was shot down, just accept that. It's not a big deal, nobody did anything wrong. One of the engines was found in the secondary debris field. That would be what a heat seeking missile would target, and one of the most well bolted on pieces of the plane unlikely to come off in a high speed dive on it's own.
 
deltabtry said:
You to explain the debris field.
Click to expand...

The aircraft broke up at altitude as a result of severe control inputs. If the aircraft was at 36,000 feet the piece that traveled the farthest in relation to the piece that traveled the least would have only had to travel 1/2 mile or 3000 feet per 1000 feet it descended. Considering some pieces would be heavy and very little aerodynamic properties and other pieces would have aerodynamic properties that would allow them to "float" and travel farther.

The debris field is not an inconsistency. Columbia had a 150 mile debris field. More over, an aircraft known to have exploded in air due to an attack was scattered over 81 miles.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Apparently you didn't watch the video. There were reports a second debris field was blocked off 6-8 miles from the crash site. If the plane was supposedly taken over by passengers who put it into a dive, the debris field would not be all spread out over miles. The plane was shot down, just accept that. It's not a big deal, nobody did anything wrong. One of the engines was found in the secondary debris field. That would be what a heat seeking missile would target, and one of the most well bolted on pieces of the plane unlikely to come off in a high speed dive on it's own.
Click to expand...

NO, the terrorists put the aircraft in a dive, the passengers tried to recover. That caused the break up.
 
At the end of the day, it's a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 attempted to re-take the aircraft; IMO all the passengers of Flight 93 supported that effort.

Whether the aircraft was shot down, or it was crashed by the Muslim bastards that hijacked it, is of no matter, because those Americans displayed the first mettle in our war against the Muslim terrorists. They were the first to take the fight to the enemy. They fought the good fight, because they prevented that aircraft from reaching it's target.
 
apdst said:
At the end of the day, it's a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 attempted to re-take the aircraft; IMO all the passengers of Flight 93 supported that effort.

Whether the aircraft was shot down, or it was crashed by the Muslim bastards that hijacked it, is of no matter, because those Americans displayed the first mettle in our war against the Muslim terrorists. They were the first to take the fight to the enemy. They fought the good fight, because they prevented that aircraft from reaching it's target.
Click to expand...

I think the sidewinder heat sinking missile used to shoot the plane down had more to do with it than the passengers did, but whatever.

ksu_aviator said:
NO, the terrorists put the aircraft in a dive, the passengers tried to recover. That caused the break up.
Click to expand...

No, no amount of control input will cause the engine to fall off. It would lose its wings long before it's engines. Trust me on this, I'm a pilot and an airplane mechanic. I don't doubt that the plane was in a dive, but the last thing that would come off is an engine. The bolts holding those things on are incredibly strong.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
He's right, it is a bad proposal.

First, there are air defenses near sensitive areas. Second, there are procedures for identifying lost aircraft and aircraft with malicious intent. In fact, there are...on any given day...20+ aircraft that violate the "Temporary Flight Restriction" airspace. Third, even with a lot of training, it is not easy for a shoulder fired missile to find a moving target that is as small as a Cessna or even a corporate jet. A missed shot will probably land in a densely populated neighborhood. The odds of success versus the risk do not warrant the use of shoulder fired ground to air missiles.
Click to expand...

or, put simply, how the hell would you even identify a small plane with a pilot that had malicious intentions before it's too late...with the airliners, we knew something was wrong because ATC had lost contact with the pilots, and because the planes veered off their normal course. How the hell would you even do that with general aviation? And assuming you did somehow identify such an aircraft, how can you guarantee that law enforcement could respond effectively and shoot it down in the nick of time?? And even given THAT, such a shootdown would still be potentially dangerous for civilians on the ground, especially in urban areas. This is an utterly idiotic proposal.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
No, no amount of control input will cause the engine to fall off. It would lose its wings long before it's engines. Trust me on this, I'm a pilot and an airplane mechanic. I don't doubt that the plane was in a dive, but the last thing that would come off is an engine. The bolts holding those things on are incredibly strong.
Click to expand...

No you are not. If you were, you'd know about shear pins. Boeing has mounted all of their power plants with shear pins since...well I don't know when...but long before the 757/767. They've had power plants separate from 747's and 737's for a lot less than a hard pull out of a dive that lead to an over speed. Do you really think that the wings can fall off, the fuselage break up, elevator separate and the only thing that is guaranteed to stay on is the engine? You're full of it. The power plant is designed to separate under certain circumstances and an aircraft that is being flown by a novice in a critical phase of flight is not going to be piloted smoothly.
 
Why does everyone think it would have been easy to go ram that jetliner? Imagine one thing going 500 mph trying to hit another thing going 500 mph. You think fighter pilots train for that? Hell no.
 
American said:
Why does everyone think it would have been easy to go ram that jetliner? Imagine one thing going 500 mph trying to hit another thing going 500 mph. You think fighter pilots train for that? Hell no.
Click to expand...

Imagine with living with yourself if you had ejected and missed...
 
American said:
You can't eject, you have to fly it all the way.
Click to expand...

well, you don't really "have" to do it one way or the other, but they were thinking about ejecting, but Lt. Penney was also afraid of what would happened if she ejected and missed.
 
Deuce said:
Mid-air refueling operations still have a pilot on-board to make the necessary adjustments. Between the wake turbulence, the ejection force, the fighter's inherent instability, and the sudden change in center-of-gravity of the F-16, collision is unlikely in a rear approach.

Better off in a head-on approach. Higher rate of closure means shorter time for things to mess up... although the aiming and timing becomes much harder.

While I'm not one to normally pull credentials, you do have two professional pilots telling you that this isn't as easy as you think it is.
Click to expand...
you do have two professional pilots telling you that this isn't as easy as you think it is.
Click to expand...
I figured as such, and I am not doubting what you two are saying. Just being the devils advocate, I appreciate the correction in my way of thinking, I thought perhaps in this day and age auto pilot and fly by wire would have made things a bit easier.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Apparently you didn't watch the video. There were reports a second debris field was blocked off 6-8 miles from the crash site. If the plane was supposedly taken over by passengers who put it into a dive, the debris field would not be all spread out over miles. The plane was shot down, just accept that. It's not a big deal, nobody did anything wrong. One of the engines was found in the secondary debris field. That would be what a heat seeking missile would target, and one of the most well bolted on pieces of the plane unlikely to come off in a high speed dive on it's own.
Click to expand...

Breakup in-flight is not uncommon in extreme stresses like a panicked terrorist might do when the passengers are trying to break down the door. Also, the engine is actually one of the worst bolted on pieces of the plane - they're designed to break away clean if too much stress is applied so as to not risk taking the wing with it.

dontworrybehappy said:
No, no amount of control input will cause the engine to fall off. It would lose its wings long before it's engines. Trust me on this, I'm a pilot and an airplane mechanic. I don't doubt that the plane was in a dive, but the last thing that would come off is an engine. The bolts holding those things on are incredibly strong.
Click to expand...

Let me guess - you've never flown or maintained an airline-sized jet?
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
The aircraft broke up at altitude as a result of severe control inputs. If the aircraft was at 36,000 feet the piece that traveled the farthest in relation to the piece that traveled the least would have only had to travel 1/2 mile or 3000 feet per 1000 feet it descended. Considering some pieces would be heavy and very little aerodynamic properties and other pieces would have aerodynamic properties that would allow them to "float" and travel farther.

The debris field is not an inconsistency. Columbia had a 150 mile debris field. More over, an aircraft known to have exploded in air due to an attack was scattered over 81 miles.
Click to expand...
My point being is what the news was broadcasts and the debris field later reported, then the most puzzling thing was the complete apparent black out it seems of this story. Not saying it is a conspiracy actuallyfar from it, and I would completely understand the protection and identity of a fighter pilot that actually had to pull the trigger.
 
apdst said:
At the end of the day, it's a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 attempted to re-take the aircraft; IMO all the passengers of Flight 93 supported that effort.

Whether the aircraft was shot down, or it was crashed by the Muslim bastards that hijacked it, is of no matter, because those Americans displayed the first mettle in our war against the Muslim terrorists. They were the first to take the fight to the enemy. They fought the good fight, because they prevented that aircraft from reaching it's target.
Click to expand...
Whether the aircraft was shot down, or it was crashed by the Muslim bastards that hijacked it, is of no matter, because those Americans displayed the first mettle in our war against the Muslim terrorists. They were the first to take the fight to the enemy. They fought the good fight, because they prevented that aircraft from reaching it's target.
Click to expand...
and that said, our country owes it's gratitude.
 
deltabtry said:
My point being is what the news was broadcasts and the debris field later reported, then the most puzzling thing was the complete apparent black out it seems of this story. Not saying it is a conspiracy actuallyfar from it, and I would completely understand the protection and identity of a fighter pilot that actually had to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Blackout? I remember hearing this story like days after it actually happened.
 
Deuce said:
Blackout? I remember hearing this story like days after it actually happened.
Click to expand...
I have ask people that I knew and they are mum as well.
 
deltabtry said:
I have ask people that I knew and they are mum as well.
Click to expand...

Both stories of unarmed fighters being sent toward Flight 93, from either east or west, don’t stand up to logic. Three fully-armed fighters reached Washington before the one unarmed or the two-partially armed ones did. So why not send one of those first three fighters after Flight 93? Is it believable that an hour and a half after NORAD had been notified of the first hijacking, the best NORAD could have done with Flight 93 when fighters would have finally caught up with it around 10:16 would have been to have a fighter attempt to bring it down by crashing into it?
Click to expand...

Poke around truther websites and you'll find plenty of references to the ammunition-less fighters. (and how they think that story is bogus)
 
Deuce said:
Poke around truther websites and you'll find plenty of references to the ammunition-less fighters. (and how they think that story is bogus)
Click to expand...
NO no Not truther websites, I don't go there. I'll just accept your explanation.
 
they had one of the pilots on a news magazine on 9/11 (might have been 60 minutes) talking about this. pilot stated that the military jet would have to bring the airliner down by clipping the wing off and then eject after performing the maneuver. i imagine that would mean coming in from above in a dive and cutting off the wing with the wing of the military jet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom