flight 93 shot down ??

Myrddin

snafuk35 wrote: »

Do you really believe that a government this incompetent could have pulled it off?

A plane on it's way to the front door to the White House isn't going to get there...conspiracy or no conspiracy. I strongly agree with you, & I also doubt the US goverment has the intelligence/organisational integrity to stage 9/11 as an excuse to begin the War On Terror.

I do believe though, that they have the cowardice to lie to protect their own internal political interests. Ie, would they have the balls & open mindedness to come out and say:

"Regretfully, Flight 93 was lost in the interests of national security. We deepply regret having to take the necessary action, but the lives lost should be remembered, as they have potentially saved a lot more today."

Of course they wouldn't, as it would be political suicide. If the above action was taken, would I expect them to lie about it? Most definitely yes. The plane came down in a remote location, witnesses wouldn't be a problem. The black box recordings we all heard are the bits we were allowed to hear & so forth. I don't want to come across as a foil hat lover as I'm not, but I think the above has merit.

Di0genes

EnterNow wrote: »

Personally I believe it was shot down, which, if it was, was the right thing to do sadly.

Please read this link

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

It details the overwhelming evidence that the plane crashed due to passenger intervention.

Dozens of passengers and flight attendents attacked their hijackers and paid for it with their lives.

By spreading this untruth you are dishonouring the memory of their sacrifice.

snafuk35

A plane on it's way to the front door to the White House isn't going to get there...conspiracy or no conspiracy.

A plane was crashed into the front of the White House during the Clinton Presidency.

I do believe though, that they have the cowardice to lie to protect their own internal political interests. Ie, would they have the balls & open mindedness to come out and say:

"Regretfully, Flight 93 was lost in the interests of national security. We deepply regret having to take the necessary action, but the lives lost should be remembered, as they have potentially saved a lot more today."

There is no way they would have been able to cover up the shooting down of Flight 93. There would have been too many people involved and too many links in the chain of command to keep people involved onside and to keep them from going to the press.

witnesses wouldn't be a problem.

Why wouldn't they be a problem?

The black box recordings we all heard are the bits we were allowed to hear & so forth.

The full details of the black boxes are on public record.

Di0genes

In addition full transciprts and the actual recordings from NORAD and FAA staff on 911 can be listened to here.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

davoxx

EnterNow wrote: »

"There were high level diplomats on board, about to initiate Disclosure"
"There were people on board infected with a new biological super germ"
"Someone on board had stolen state secrets"

You could go on forever.

you sure can .. but does not mean they were false.

similarly they could have said that godzilla took down the buildings, you'd have crazy N-CTs saying:
"of course it happened, even though i never saw godzilla other than in movies"
"you hate america because you don't believe in godzilla .... no i never actually saw him"


i think people need to stop lumping all CTs together. just like all NCTs are not religious fanatics that believe in god/s

davoxx

Hogzy wrote: »

This should be the first questions all conspiracy theorists should be asking themselves about 9/11

maybe that is what they want you to think ... maybe all NCTs should be asking themselves that?

snafuk35

davoxx wrote: »

maybe that is what they want you to think ... maybe all NCTs should be asking themselves that?

So you want us to believe Dubya was pretending to be stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rToKEnySb7s

davoxx

snafuk35 wrote: »

So you want us to believe Dubya was pretending to be stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

i'm not sure what those clips are meant to say.

are you saying you believe bush to be slightly dim?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

By spreading this untruth you are dishonouring the memory of their sacrifice.

nice touch there.
ever think that by not questioning it we are dishonouring the memory of the sacrifice of the people who died on 911 and in the wars there after in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as all those who lost loved ones from 911 and the wars?

snafuk35

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what those clips are meant to say.

are you saying you believe bush to be slightly dim?

Obama too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzugbGTj_k4

And you expect us to believe these guys are masterminds of a vast conspiracy?

davoxx

snafuk35 wrote: »

Obama too.

okay i'll deal with
1) that bush and obama are idiots
2) that being idiots they can not be the master mind of a vast conspiracy.

weisses

davoxx wrote: »

okay i'll deal with
1) that bush and obama are idiots
2) that being idiots they can not be the master mind of a vast conspiracy.

since when do presidents know what their intelligence agency's are doing ?

I know Kennedy didn't

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

okay i'll deal with
1) that bush and obama are idiots
bush -> http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
obama -> NONE FOUND (though this might explain his intelligence http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama%27s_grades_in_college)

2) that being idiots they can not be the master mind of a vast conspiracy.

since point 1 cannot be substantiated, point 2 is null and void.

agreed snafuk35?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

nice touch there.
ever think that by not questioning it we are dishonouring the memory of the sacrifice of the people who died on 911 and in the wars there after in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as all those who lost loved ones from 911 and the wars?

What a wonderfully loaded question.

The evidence that the passengers attacked the hijackers is overwhelming.

When I made my post I backed it up with links that supported my assertion, something you never bother doing.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

What a wonderfully loaded question.

loaded how?

Di0genes wrote: »

By spreading this untruth you are dishonouring the memory of their sacrifice.

i just did what you did, unless ... wait for it ... wait for it ... you loaded yours first?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

loaded how?


i just did what you did, unless ... wait for it ... wait for it ... you loaded yours first?

Do you have a substantive point about United 93, or do you want another discussion about semantics?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you have a substantive point about United 93, or do you want another discussion about semantics?

do you have a point or do you want another discussion about semantics?

snafuk35

If Flight 93 was shot down, then who shot the plane down? Who is the pilot? Where was he based? Who is his commanding officer? Who ordered him to shoot the plane down? Why hasn't the pilot or commanding officer and another number of other people who would have to have known about gone to press and blown the story?

Daithi 1

Di0genes wrote: »

By spreading this untruth you are dishonouring the memory of their sacrifice.

Sacrifice :

Sacrifice is the offering of food, objects or the lives of animals or people to the gods as an act of propitiation or worship.

Oh.. you must be talking about the hijackers. :rolleyes:

humanji

2.Give up (something important or valued) for the sake of other considerations

SNAKEDOC

jimbo00 wrote: »

a friend of mine works for the US airforce. A colleague of his loaded missles onto 2 fighter jets and when the jets came back to base the missles were gone. make of that what you will!

standard proceedure for fighter aircraft returning from a combat air patrol when in a war time scenario. dump ordinance in safe area make approach and land re arm or next sortie. try landing in combat conditions in bad weather perhaps and boom. those jets touch down near the centre of the runway an explosion like that puts air operations off for several hours while crews try and fix the runway safer just to dump ordinance.

if the plane was shot down the US would have hailed it as another disaster averted and used it as a propaganda tool saying look how quick the air force responded. no the jet was purposefully driven into the ground by the passengers.

the other point about the fuel aviation fuel is extremely hard to ignite. you can put a match to it and nothing. only the combustion chambers in the jet will ignite it and there are back valves to prevent fire balls in case of an engine fire or a crash landing. but seeing as the plane plowed head long into the ground i would say it all just vaporized instantly. it was a field anyway not a hgely wooded area. nothing really to burn down.

stuar

Di0genes wrote: »

Please read this link

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

It details the overwhelming evidence that the plane crashed due to passenger intervention.

Dozens of passengers and flight attendents attacked their hijackers and paid for it with their lives.

By spreading this untruth you are dishonouring the memory of their sacrifice.

Tell that to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ohh and the 9/11 commission, and this other fella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC1QAR5gQrc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It5JC45KMGo

Di0genes

So your argument is based on Rumsfeld and Cheney incriminating themselves of mass murder on national tv and a volunteer fire fighter stating he didn't see the crash?

Utterly pathetic. What about the other eyewitness testimony that directly refutes your claims?

Jonny7

There's evidence on both sides.

Its an incredibly hard and complex decision, but if the plane is a threat to kill even more people and there are no other alternatives - then I would believe any country with the capability would logically try to shoot the plane down, rather than risk further loss of life.

Its a unique dilemma.

christmas2012

It wasnt shot down,if it was it would have been well before it flew into the twin towers

humanji

Flight 93 didn't crash into the towers.

jumpjack

Yes, let's start from scratch!

No, I'm unsubscribing... :rolleyes:

Sixtus

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's evidence on both sides.

Its an incredibly hard and complex decision, but if the plane is a threat to kill even more people and there are no other alternatives - then I would believe any country with the capability would logically try to shoot the plane down, rather than risk further loss of life.

Its a unique dilemma.

Theres literally no evidence that it was shot down. Witnesses saw it crash, dozens of them. The flight recorder confirms it. The FAA confirm it. A private jet near by did a fly pass. The plane wreckage buried into the soft ground. Had the been shot down at altitude the debris would be spread for miles (any claims about the debris field been spread for miles can been debunked because the people making the claim site the debris was found 9 miles away, use a route on roads, not a crow flies route). Finally the bravery of the passengers has been incredibly well documented in the phone calls, which were both recorded and relayed in personal accounts. The passengers of United 93 when they found out there had been other hijackings that day, and learnt of plan of the hijackers, and took their fate into their own hands understanding that the terrorists wanted to use the plane as weapon to kill other people.

People who claim that the flight was shot down disrespect the memory of these people and their bravery.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

People who claim that the flight was shot down disrespect the memory of these people and their bravery.

Not if it was in fact shot down... obviously.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not if it was in fact shot down... obviously.

Do you have any facts to support the assertion that it was shot down?