Then you have never read much on the subject. Yes, it corkscrewed into the ground, and most of the remains were in a big deep whole -- which makes it even more strange that some large parts of the plane were found quite a distance from this area.


As I am not an insider and have no military experience, I really have no idea. I've done extensive reading on this specific subject as well as the 9/11 attacks as a whole, but all I can do is look at the evidence. What you are asking for is pure speculation, and it would be just guesswork.


I can post 5 or 10, or even 20 newspaper articles confirming what I posted above, but nobody is going to bother reading them all, so instead I'm going to post a single article -- probably the most comprehensive article I have found to date on Flight 93. It doesn't go into great detail on any one area, but it basically covers each area very briefly. If you want more detail on any one thing they mention in the article, then use your google search and they are very easy to find. This is from a British newspaper of all places:

WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?

Read the whole article (not just the first paragraph) and then post your thoughts or comments.

I just noticed that the article I posted has a nice summary at the bottom, so I figured I would post the summary:

So Eric5273, you must be the first person in line to buy that Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" and watch it every night befor bedtime?

F16's, I would have thought F18's would be used. I saw a bunch of these get scrambled on 9/11/2001.

Here come a bunch of IFS:

If the plane was shot down by blowing out an engine, this would explain the corkscrew pattern as well as the engine debris being outside the crash site.

I have no problem blowing a passenger plane out of the sky if it means saving additional lives, but that is me...a lot of people would disagree.

I am with you Wag, as term goes "justifiable losses", I hope they are all resting in peace.

So if a pre-emptive shot was fired at an engine in the hope of at least crippling the plane, so what? It seems like a cruelly logical step to take. In the cold calculus of war, it was the only choice. By not shooting a wing off or strafing the cockpit, there was still a remote chance the plane could have been landed with some survivors. If that is indeed what happened, then yes, the truth should come out. I just can't believe that with all those folks on their cell phones, someone didn't say, "Oh god, the engine just exploded!"

And how fast was Flight 93 going in its final moments? A nosediving jet could well approach or exceed Mach1. I see the figure of 575mph. Furthermore, a military jet tailing a sub-sonic airliner will not create a sonic boom. And certainly the impact or explosion would have set off all kinds is seismic monitors. That was a horrific blast. Additionally, a Sidewinder is a standoff weapon--it's range is supposed to be classified, but any plane that shot down Flight 93 would not even have to be visible.

Enough of the spooky-wooky. They got us. Once. They got us because we are an open and trusting society and they were able to recruit a gaggle of dead-enders who were willing to die because of their hatred of our society and our refusal to allow Israel to be pushed into the sea.

Eric, what kind of BS are you talking about a shoot down. You have got to be f'in kidding me. Sorry for the language used but the fact you said this as if the rest of us are ingnorant of the facts just kills me. I assume you also believe the Navy shot down the 747 over the Atlantic some years back. Conspiracies abound but one thing is for certain. They WERE NOT SHOT DOWN. The military just cant keep the secret (secret prisons, torture scandal, etc...) The liberal media would not cease until it was exposed. (That is except the fking Mirror, I mean come on!!!!)

I don't think anyone can claim to be 'certain' that flight 93 was not shot down. People can assume and have faith that the media is really that good and that their ability to capture inside information is because of their skill and not inteligence leaks. People seem to have a blind faith with 9/11/2001. As if the government would never mislead the public and as if all the relative evidence the same goverment showed, points to a given conclusion.

Look at it this way: people were certain the Earth was the center of the Universe, people were certain the Earth was flat, people were certain the atom was the smallest piece of matter.......things change.

Let's keep it civil, guys... we can make our points without attacking the person or cussing like sailors... no pun intended. :)

Accella- you're right about the missile's range- no need to be within MILES of the airliner if they were using a missile and had orders to take it down.

In this situation, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some 20 mm from a gun shot taking out an engine- visual confirmation of the plane, its tail number and ascertainment of who was in the pilots chair could be done in the air of course, and you'd want to be sure you had the right plane. Then again, 3 planes had already crashed at that point, so maybe no one was going to take any chances and instead rely on technology to identify the plane, so a missile could certainly have been launched from beyond vfr contact.

If it was a missile shot, it likely locked on to the heat signature of one of the engines. First, the engine would be blown to bits. There would be numerous secondary explosions, due to the fuel in the wings igniting. After the wings are gone, and the fuselage likely broken into pieces, the aircraft loses most of its aerodynamic properties:
no more wings= no more lift
no more tail means no more stabilator or rudder and no ability to steer

Pitch is also gone and the only thing you're left with is drag, which would start to make the remains of the aircraft veer off in the directions the explosion blew them and quickly lose altitude.

JV