Why do RAF Jets escort plane's?

[Dales 10]

4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Of course, I could believe the unattributed witness testimony of a random farmer or I could instead choose to believe the NTSB report including the evidence from the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.

 

I guess you’ll just have to call me picky! 😳

Well I won't call you picky.  My other half talks about conspiracy theories quite a bit.  Even in the face of clear evidence.

[tlangdon12 13]

7 hours ago, Obelix said:

I'm not able to divulge the exact number available but it's public knowledge there are at least six available (and pilots ready) to put up from both air group North and South.

And a Typhoon can get from Northern Scotland to the south coast of the UK in about 20 minutes, so there are at least twelve QRA aircraft covering the whole of the UK.  

[Ontarian1981 10]

4 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Of course, I could believe the unattributed witness testimony of a random farmer or I could instead choose to believe the NTSB report including the evidence from the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.

 

I guess you’ll just have to call me picky! 😳

Check the wreckage footage, there is nothing bigger than 4 inches left on the ground. The conspiracy is the official storyine, not the shooting it down,that's the most likely scenario anyway in light of what had gone before. Two fighter jets were in the air prior to the twin towers hits, but they couldn't find the two hijacked planes in time. They had time and knew the location of 93 because of all the phone traffic from passengers etc.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

Check the wreckage footage, there is nothing bigger than 4 inches left on the ground.

You clearly know nothing about accident investigation and I suspect that you spend far too much time watching crank YouTube videos on the internet.

 

 

[Ontarian1981 10]

41 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You clearly know nothing about accident investigation and I suspect that you spend far too much time watching crank YouTube videos on the internet.

 

 

What was the accident investigation conclusion about the size of the  debris at the crash scene. It looked nothing like an airplane had crashed, it had to be caused by an explosion prior to hitting the ground. I have held these beliefs long before any You Tube videos hit the internet.I have never seen a "crank" video of this event btw.

[crookesjoe 10]

2 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

What was the accident investigation conclusion about the size of the  debris at the crash scene. It looked nothing like an airplane had crashed, it had to be caused by an explosion prior to hitting the ground. I have held these beliefs long before any You Tube videos hit the internet.I have never seen a "crank" video of this event btw.

What you're saying is hard to disagree with.

 

The crash site at the Pentagon was unbelievably fishy.

 

And the only CCTV footage captured at the Pentagon was a blurry low-res camera at some guard hut. Ummm ok.....

[Top Cats Hat 10]

If an aircraft explodes in mid air, it falls in large pieces (PanAm 103 over Lockerbie)

 

If an aircraft hits the ground in one piece at very high speed there is virtually nothing recognisable left. (Ethiopian Airlines 302)

 

 

[crookesjoe 10]

14 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

If an aircraft explodes in mid air, it falls in large pieces (PanAm 103 over Lockerbie)

 

If an aircraft hits the ground in one piece at very high speed there is virtually nothing recognisable left. (Ethiopian Airlines 

What a silly comment.

 

Just google image search plane crash. That should change your mind.

 

 

[Obelix 11]

1 hour ago, Ontarian1981 said:

What was the accident investigation conclusion about the size of the  debris at the crash scene. It looked nothing like an airplane had crashed, it had to be caused by an explosion prior to hitting the ground. I have held these beliefs long before any You Tube videos hit the internet.I have never seen a "crank" video of this event btw.

Do you realise the sheer amount of energy involved in flying that sort of mass at a couple of hundred meters a second into solid ground? Basic physics will tell you that you dont expect to find very large pieces of anything - a debris field of mainly small bits is indicating there was no mid air explosion as the aircraft retained it's integrity - and therefore it's velocity right up to impact.

49 minutes ago, crookesjoe said:

What a silly comment.

 

Just google image search plane crash. That should change your mind.

 

 

IF you look at Lockerbie then the aerodyanmic components of the crash like the wing section left almost nothing recognisable. They could only conclude the wing had hit Sherwood crescent by counting the jackscrews from the flaps.

Conmpare to ah unerodymanic cockpit that fell at a much slower speed and was more or less recognisable because it fell much slower.

[Halibut 12]

It never fails to sadden me that people make asinine comments based on bulldung youtube videos whilst ignoring scientific evidence from reliable sources.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

10 hours ago, crookesjoe said:

What a silly comment.

Presumably because it blows your silly conspiraloon theory out of the water. 😂

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

I don't know if this proves any thing, but it's worth a look.

 

 

 

Angel1.