Gianni's Bar and Grille. Guns and shit. And Bourbon. And occasional side boob
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gianni's Bar and Grille. Guns and shit. And Bourbon. And occasional side boob (http://www.nobigtoe.com/index.php)
-   The Lt. Allen Swanson Project (http://www.nobigtoe.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread (http://www.nobigtoe.com/showthread.php?t=13811)

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 10:59
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Correct Mal, a friend of Mrs Phix if I recall. And I don't think anyone here is whacked out enough to even suggest what they saw didn't happen.

Rondo 1st February 2006 11:29
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted
Again, wishing it was the case isn't any sort of proof that it was.
It's not proof that it wasn't either. Rather than falling back on catch phrases make an effort to show evidence for or against either theory. Ask OneL about the difference between regular takeoffs and the FMP takeoffs she saw and heard that day. Look at the math and interception windows. To blindly say "It never happened" is burying your head in the sand. Chikken is right though...none of us will ever know for sure. Believe whatever you want, but analyze the evidence before ruling anything out "just because".

BTW this has nothing to do with those morans and their WTC whacko theories. Flight 93 is not a conspiracy theory. It's a cover-up theory.

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 11:34
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rondo
Chikken is right though...

Soulslayer 1st February 2006 11:49
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rondo
Ask OneL about the difference between regular takeoffs and the FMP takeoffs she saw and heard that day.
that shit will wake you up from a coma. MrSS, I and a couple of friends sat across from the flightline back in the day and watched them take off for Desert Storm. WOW.

Now we live about 2 miles from the base, and I can tell you , you grow to tune out the jet noise...until you hear them scramble.

C-5s are another sound entirely. It will knock shit off your walls and cabinets.

But you've not lived until you've sat at a stoplight and seen one of these fly right over top of your car.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/b21.html

god.damn I love the USAF

maladjusted 1st February 2006 12:05
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rondo
It's not proof that it wasn't either.
What's your point? I already allowed that it COULD have happened but that I do not believe it did.


Quote:
Rather than falling back on catch phrases make an effort to show evidence for or against either theory.
What evidence do I have that's not already public knowledge? It's not as if I'm privvy to some top secret shit that I'm not sharing.

Nobody saw missiles or trails from missiles inbound.

Nobody saw explosions (nobody credible, that is).


You said "WHY would they not release the recorders?"


Well, here's one for you-- why wouldn't they say "Yes, we shot it down. We have the best airforce in the world and do not fuck with us."

Hmm? Why would we cover up a success? It's public knowledge that we were looking for hijacked jetliners and guys had orders to take them down. So if that plan succeeded, why lie about it?


Quote:
To blindly say "It never happened" is burying your head in the sand.
Blindly? I've read the same stuff you have, in fact I bibliographied it to prove it to you.

I just don't agree with you.




Quote:
none of us will ever know for sure.
Probably not.


Quote:
analyze the evidence before ruling anything out "just because".
Asked and answered. I have.

Hondo 1st February 2006 12:17
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted

You said "WHY would they not release the recorders?"


Well, here's one for you-- why wouldn't they say "Yes, we shot it down. We have the best airforce in the world and do not fuck with us."

Hmm? Why would we cover up a success? It's public knowledge that we were looking for hijacked jetliners and guys had orders to take them down. So if that plan succeeded, why lie about it?
Because they were fearful of the media/public reaction and made a decision they couldn't go back on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted
I just don't agree with you.
Fair enough

binky_snoosh 1st February 2006 13:22
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Planes just don't blow up in mid-air when struck by a missile. That's more Top Gun BS. Heat seeking or radar guided air-to-air missiles are designed to disrupt the airframe and/or propulsion units so that the plane can no longer fly. The crash dynamics in Pennsylvania are entirely consistent with the 757 being struck by a AAM and going into an unrecoverable dive into the ground.

The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a effective range of 25-50 miles. The airspeed closure rate between interceptors and Flight 93 is at minimum over 1000 mph and perhaps as high as 1800 mph. An F-16 in full burner tops out over 1300 mph. A 757 can cruise easily at 500 mph. Do the math.

Intercept distance from Andrews AFB to Shanksville, PA : 136 miles.
Intercept distance from Langley AFB to Shanksville, PA : 243 miles.

Intercept time Langley to Shanksville 13:15
Intercept time Andrews to Shanksville 07:25

Those figures assume only a 1100 mph closure velocity and don't account for the missile range and missile velocity (for an AMRAAM it's Mach 4+ or in excess of 3100 mph.)

Put simply there was plenty of time for an intercept and the fact the Feds have NEVER released the flight data recorder convinces me that an intercept did, in fact, occur. The heroes story makes for a lot better copy. I'm not much into the whole conspiracy theory bullshit as a general rule but I know what the USAF is capable of and there just isn't any solid evidence to contradict it.
if a train left Barsow at 4:00 traveling to Sacramento at 100 miles per hour, and another train left Sacramento heading to Barstow, traveling at 75 miles an hour. If they were both on the same track, how long until they collide?



binky.

Hondo 1st February 2006 13:55
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by binky_snoosh
if a train left Barsow at 4:00 traveling to Sacramento at 100 miles per hour, and another train left Sacramento heading to Barstow, traveling at 75 miles an hour. If they were both on the same track, how long until they collide?
The track from Barsow to Sacramento isn't the same track as the Sacramento to Barstow track moran. Leave running the trains to the Italians there Canuck.

Hondo 1st February 2006 14:01
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
My grandparents are good friends with a couple that lost their daughter in the South Tower. She had started to evacuate after the North Tower was hit but then got the word that the evacuation was cancelled. She went back to her office and died there after the South Tower was hit. She was talking to her dad on the phone in West Virginia when the plane hit. They never found a trace of her.

maladjusted 1st February 2006 16:04
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Because they were fearful of the media/public reaction and made a decision they couldn't go back on.
I can't recall seeing any negative press about the decision to shoot down the plane.

Sure, I could see some nay sayers running around screaming if it had actually happened, but the overwhelming sentiment was "Had to be done. Terriers' fault."

Besides, the F-16s that were in the area were unarmed m(from a training mission) and would have had to kamikaze the plane. No F-16 wreckage found (or was that covered up, too?).

If we believe this idea, that it was kamikazed down, or shot down by unseen interceptors with unseen missiles, how come the eyewitnesses that reported seeing a Lear jet type aircraft in the area didn't report the military aircraft?

maladjusted 1st February 2006 16:06
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
She had started to evacuate after the North Tower was hit but then got the word that the evacuation was cancelled.

This bugs the shit out of me.

A. That the order to return to the towers was given.

B. That people are such sheep they did it. The other tower just got hit by a damn airplane. Maybe it was so surreal they didn't think it was as bad as it was or couldn't fathom it, but jeez.

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 16:13
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted
This bugs the shit out of me.

A. That the order to return to the towers was given.

B. That people are such sheep they did it. The other tower just got hit by a damn airplane. Maybe it was so surreal they didn't think it was as bad as it was or couldn't fathom it, but jeez.
My guess is they were still thinking accident not attack and they didn't want people outside having stuff fall on them and also getting in the way of the rescue operation in progress. All pretty reasonable things to think at the moment, in hindsight a huge mistake, but 20/20 and all that.

taco 1st February 2006 16:20
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
1 Attachment(s)
Hey DBD,

Sweet Dreams

Hondo 1st February 2006 16:22
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Kamikaze'd? No way. Taken out at 30-50 miles by an AMRAAM over a rural area? Very plausible. Even if someone were looking straight up at it from the ground they probably couldn't see it. Besides it would have likely been a "look-down shoot-down" shot from a substantially higher altitude. Target engagement would have been at the edge of the range envelope. A target that big and slow is easy pickings for an AMRAAM. There'd be no point in closing to visual range.

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 16:34
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Kamikaze'd? No way. Taken out at 30-50 miles by an AMRAAM over a rural area? Very plausible. Even if someone were looking straight up at it from the ground they probably couldn't see it. Besides it would have likely been a "look-down shoot-down" shot from a substantially higher altitude. Target engagement would have been at the edge of the range envelope. A target that big and slow is easy pickings for an AMRAAM. There'd be no point in closing to visual range.

Oh, in that case you are right. It was shot down, clearly.


Also, Taco, I have reported you to the administrators and you are now on my ignore list.

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 16:36
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
1 Attachment(s)

Soulslayer 1st February 2006 16:39
Re: Flight 93
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted
how come the eyewitnesses that reported seeing a Lear jet type aircraft in the area didn't report the military aircraft?
duh....stealth

maladjusted 1st February 2006 17:01
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooflechicken
20/20 and all that.
Yes. Good point.

Fag.

maladjusted 1st February 2006 17:04
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Kamikaze'd? No way.
Chaff and flares into the turbine intakes.



Quote:
There'd be no point in closing to visual range.
Other than verifying that you are not vaporizing the wrong airplane full of innocent American citizens...

Why didn't the eyewitnesses see an explosion before the plane crashed?

One says she "done heard a couple of booms" but nobody who saw the phantom Lear saw an explosion from missile impact.

Rooflechicken 1st February 2006 17:06
Re: Flight 93 conspiracy wacko thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladjusted
Yes. Good point.

Fag.

MAL WAS WRONG LOOK HE EVEN ADMITTED IT HAHAHAHAAHAH.

Now, should I un-ban Taco?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:52.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
®©™ 2008 NoBigToe ☻ A wholly owned subsidiary of BuyEssexWebSitesForCheap