Why do RAF Jets escort plane's?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

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

That’s why they struggled with the wreckage of Ethiopian flight 302. It went into the ground, nose down at over 400 mph. When a plane explodes in mid air, it loses most of it’s energy and the parts tend to ‘flutter’ down impacting the ground at relatively low speeds. The Malaysian 777 shot down over the Ukraine was hit at cruising height and fell 30,000 feet+ but large parts were still found intact all over the crash site. 

 

Trying to claim that AA 73 was shot down because only small pieces were found is nonsensical as what it actually proves that it could not have been shot down.

[tinfoilhat 11]

On 28/06/2019 at 23:13, Ontarian1981 said:

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.

Watch Aircraft investigation on Nat geo. It’s made in Canada I think so you’ll love it (I’ve a feeling it’s called mayday or something though over there). There’s about 15 series covering every kind of major air crash you can think of, bombs, missiles, pilot error, software errors, air traffic control errors, maintenance errors. Worth a watch, but try and do a few at a time, youll feel quite the expert!

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Watch Aircraft investigation on Nat geo. It’s made in Canada I think so you’ll love it (I’ve a feeling it’s called mayday or something though over there). 

I’ve seen one or two of those, and while quite tabloid and sensationalist they are usually based on the relevant accident report which keeps them grounded in some form of reality.

 

Certainly a lot more reality than the evidence-free conspiraloon YouTube videos that seem to be so popular with some.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I’ve seen one or two of those, and while quite tabloid and sensationalist they are usually based on the relevant accident report which keeps them grounded in some form of reality.

 

Certainly a lot more reality than the evidence-free conspiraloon YouTube videos that seem to be so popular with some.

And more often than not interviews with the actual investigators, and not just the ntsb lot, investigators from all over the world.

 

Alot of the documentary channels have sold out with Vikings etc but Aircrash has been pretty consistent.

[hobinfoot 25]

The RAF jets were scrambled to escort the airliner after warnings about a bomb onboard.  Terrible has it seems shooting it down over water is better than letting it crash on land.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

45 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

Terrible has it seems shooting it down over water is better than letting it crash on land.

They’d struggle to shoot it down over water between the Peak District where they intercepted it, and Stanstead where it landed. 😉

[hobinfoot 25]

14 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They’d struggle to shoot it down over water between the Peak District where they intercepted it, and Stanstead where it landed. 😉

It certainly would.

[crookesjoe 10]

On 29/06/2019 at 08:57, Halibut said:

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

There are plenty of qualified experts that have presented evidence that doubts the official account of what happened that day.

 

I'm not claiming to know 100% for sure what happened, but after researching this topic in great detail, my gut feeling is that the official story is inaccurate.

 

I base that opinion on the testimony of highly qualified expert opinions, and scientific reasoning behind their claims.

 

'Bulldung' youtube videos are not something I would use to form an opinion.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, crookesjoe said:

I base that opinion on the testimony of highly qualified expert opinions, and scientific reasoning behind their claims.

Maybe you could name some of them then. 🙂

[crookesjoe 10]

49 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Maybe you could name some of them then. 🙂

Certainly.

 

There is an organisation called 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth'

 

Their membership includes over 2000 qualified architects and engineers all educated to degree standard.

 

Here's a link to a video which would be a good starting point to anyone prepared to at least listen to an alternative stance.

 

 

[Obelix 11]

You know that looks just like a bulldung Youtube video to me. I'm not wading through all that - tell us what your evidence is.

 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

Watching a professional Conspiracy Theorist interviewed on Iranian TV by a professional Conspiracy Theorist is not research.