I have flight 93 all figured out. New Theory. The right one.

OK, I will first state that I do not have time this morning to find all the supporting links that I could, ill try to edit them in later as I get some time. So everything below is theory based on stuff I have read in the past. I�m sure most of you will have read the same stuff and my theory does not contradict most existing theories so its not to hard to swallow.

I will start my theory by saying that flight 93 WAS SHOT DOWN. The plane was shot out of the sky AND our government did it. But that�s not the whole theory!

First, some assumed �facts�:

1. The government gave the executive order to shoot.
2. There was PLENTY of time for fighters to get to the area. 50 Minutes to be exact. And some state they saw fighters in the area.
3. Passengers called relatives from the plane and said they were going to try to stop it. The famous �lets roll� call by Todd (forget last name).

So, what do these �facts� tell us? Well, there was an order to shoot down the plane AND there were fighters in the area with plenty of time to act. The only �fact� that isn�t accepted as gospel is that the fighters were actually there. The government denies it. But of course they would deny it! They don�t want you to know they shot down the plane. And that�s where my theory kicks in.

The Theory:

The passengers on flight 93 managed to act against the terrorists in control of the plane. In the only tape released from any of the hijacked planes, you can hear the passengers beating on the door. And of course the famous �Lets roll� cell phone call by Todd. This is a heroic picture of Americans acting against evil oppressors in a time of desperation. If the US admits they shot down this plane, which they did, it would be about 4 seconds before the public asked the question: Why? How do we know the passengers weren�t able to gain control of the plane? And, all sanity forbid, what if the plane was shot down AFTER the passengers gained control of the plane?

The US government is denying they shot this plane down NOT in fear of killing a few to save many. The are denying shooting this plane down to avoid any inquiries into whether or not they needed to actually shoot it down. Imagine the outcry from the US if proof was exposed showing the passengers had gained control of that plane AND we shot it down. That�s it people. We shot down a passenger airliner that may have been under passenger control. And you know what? I don�t disagree with the governments decision on this if my theory is true.


Ill try to add some supporting data later today

On a side note: Like all epiphanies, I thought of this theory in the shower this morning thinking about everything else BUT conspiracies. Funny how things work that way�

I tend to think that you are correct with your theory. Shooting down the plane was a logical response (lose a few to save many) with the way things were going that day. There is no way to tell if the hijackers were overcome, or if they were would they stay that way. It's a shame that if this is true, the Gov't would come under fire for it. just as they would if it was known that they let another plane crash into another crowded site. It is a no-win situation.

skippytjc.

I agree with your reasoning 100%.

I can remember on that awful day the news coverage here in the uk, they spoke off the flight and the fighters shadowing it but then all news coverage of the flight stopped. I said to my wife that it had been shot down.

You may be right about most of what you say. But the government ordered a stand down that day, with the proviso of a cover that they were running simulations and drills. Flight 93 if shot down was done by the local National Guard independent of that centralized authority. In the future though, such drills will consumate because central authority has been strengthened at the expense of our actual security. Next time they need a few trillion, they, whoever they are, will also make the local National Guard stand down. Our government will never allow the lesson to be learned about vertical and lateral communications, prefering vertical only. That was clear from the second Shuttle disaster, even though vertical and lateral communications were highlighted upon the first disaster. While 911 and the Shuttle disaster are different news stories, the principles are the same. Government authority when centralized, promotes disaster by nullifying local perception, evaluation, and control. Who benefits? Quo bono? That is why more fake "terrorism," will be easy big money for a few, while you pay the bills.



[edit on 4-1-2005 by SkipShipman]

'Everyone' involved in this has indicated the plane was shot down.

* The BBC TV news coverage announced live on air to millions in the UK that 3 F-16's were escorting Flight 93, and discussed whether or not it would be shot down.

* A passenger in the toilet of the plane called the emergency services to say that smoke was coming from one of the engines.

* British Lockerbie crash experts said the wide debris field indicated that Flight 93 was shot down (engine possibly shot off).

* Black box flight data recorder is classified.

* Cockpit voice recording missing last few seconds.

* F16 pilots did interviews with Aviation Weekly saying that they were in the area.

* Major Rick Gibney named as the pilot that shot down Flight 93, and not denied.

* Vice-President Dick Cheney says that he twice gave the orders to shoot down flight 93.

* US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld slips-up during a speech in Iraq and says that flight 93 was shot down.

I had brought this info to ATS back in July read the coments if you like

ATS
Flight 93 Shot Down by the Happy Hooligans

Major Rick Gibney did as he was ordered and did nothing criminal. He was merely following orders,
They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After confirmation orders were received, A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;
Link


Rick Gibney - 119th Fighter Wing - Happy Hooligans

Rick Gibney, as identified on www.f16viper.org...

Tommyc and Sauron:


OK, to clarify: My theory isn�t that it was shot down. That�s old. My theory is that it was shot down and the government wont admit it due to the fact that it would raise questions that it wont be able to answer. I.e. how could we know if the coupe the passengers tried worked or failed, or could have worked.

Thats the theory.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by skippytjc]

Had flight 93 landed okay we would have found NO arab hijackers aboard the plane.

That is the other reason it could not land. Not to mention there is a decent amount of evidence to proove that everyone from the other planes was on 93 (11 and 175).

Not to mention how the families were never allowed anywhere NEAR the crash site or how all the land around the site has been bought up and turned in to a memorial that no one is allowed to get anywhere near (apparently - I'm too tired to double check this at the moment - yeah I know.. sloppy but.. deal with it).

There is more to 93 then we are being told. More then just an unreported shoot down.

Originally posted by Vis Mega
That is the other reason it could not land. Not to mention there is a decent amount of evidence to proove that everyone from the other planes was on 93 (11 and 175).

Interesting, this is a scenario that I had never considered. There were a lot of rumors that there were flights forced to land at Hopkins and taxied to a remote part of the airport. That would have been a good time to transfer the passengers to another flight (93). Actually, there probably wouldn't have been much questioning by the passengers as at the time they wouldn't have known that all hell was breaking loose. Something to ponder.

Based upon factual evidence, it is highly probable that Flight 93 was shot down.

The answer to any additional theories, is that the truth is probably a lot less complicated than many think.

In the immediate aftermath, the US Govt didn't know whether or not to admit to shooting down flight 93, and so remained silent whilst they worked out what to do.

It was the media that quickly went with the 'Hero Passengers' theory, and it suited the US Govt to go along with it.

As time goes by, the truth is released in small pieces so that people won't be so shocked when the full truth is finally revealed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania

I don't understand why they would cover it up if it was shot down. I think it's perfectly acceptable to shoot it down to prevent more than just the people inside being killed. The alternative would be to hope that the passengers crashed it before it got to a populated area, but they wouldn't know that until it's too late. So why not just admit that it was shot down if they did?

Originally posted by Vis Mega
Had flight 93 landed okay we would have found NO arab hijackers aboard the plane.

That is the other reason it could not land. Not to mention there is a decent amount of evidence to proove that everyone from the other planes was on 93 (11 and 175).

No Arab hijackers? Then who was commandeering the plane?

All passengers from 11 and 175 were onboard 93? Now that would be a trick. And how do we account for the DNA evidence of Flight 11 victims found at the WTC?
911research.wtc7.net...

Does anyone really have any proof of any DNA being found anywhere? You only know what you're told, by officials who may be lying to you, or may have been lied to themselves. I don't see how you can so readily believe things like that.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by Damned]

This theory is pretty old. I posted it a long time ago on here. So did like 4 others, even before me. But its nice to see youre using your head and came to the same conclusion as some of the rest of us. It shows that theres hope for your mind and soul, which is more than I can say for alot of people on here. Congrats on thinking and using abstraction and logic to see what appeared to me and others as blatantly obvious after examination of the real and hidden facts.

However, I have a bit more to add. I think the govornment knew damn well the plane was under passenger control and thats why they sent the f-16s after it...to make sure it didnt land in one piece. Because dead men tell no tales.l But live ones yap like hell. What could they possibly not want the passengers or investigators to discover? Who knows?

Maybe the identity of one of the hijackers was in question, since at least 7 of the 15 hijackers were dicovered to be alive and well.....victims of identity theft. So the identity of some of the hijackers remains a mystery, and maybe, would be damning info if ever discovered.

Originally posted by Damned
Does anyone really have any proof of any DNA being found anywhere? You only know what you're told, by officials who may be lying to you, or may have been lied to themselves. I don't see how you can so readily believe things like that.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by Damned]

do you have any proof that Australia exists, you only know of it because of what you're told. if we question every thought in existence, we will get nowhere. some things in this world must be taken for granted as existent in order to continue to study the facts surrounding them.

I disagree. I know which countries exist because I know people in many of them, whom I trust are not lying to me. It's also common recorded history. I've seen pictures, maps, globes, talked to people...etc. I have plenty of proof. However, I don't believe anyone involved in this crap we're in can be trusted, especially the US gov. DNA samples are not historically recorded, nor are they public record. There's a huge difference. If someone says they have your DNA, and it's been tied to a crime, are you going to just take that at face value? I'd want a few more independant expert opinions, myself.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by snoopy
I don't understand why they would cover it up if it was shot down. I think it's perfectly acceptable to shoot it down to prevent more than just the people inside being killed. The alternative would be to hope that the passengers crashed it before it got to a populated area, but they wouldn't know that until it's too late. So why not just admit that it was shot down if they did?

Simply because admitting to it being shot down would have been very controversial considering the country was under attack. It would have made the public panic even more. It was better to say nothing about it.

There would also have been lawsuits, inquiries etc. etc. and those that gave the orders (Cheney) would have been on trial.

Much simpler to follow a media generated theory of 'Hero passengers', and then for Cheney to later admit to giving the orders, so that he can't ever be accused of covering it up.

My view is that the US was behind 9/11. They probably funded and supported the terrorists without the terrorists even knowing.

Before 9/11 the Govt was already preparing for a War For Oil, and 9/11 created the excuse the Govt needed to invade Afghanistan & Iraq, as they now had the support of the public.

On 9/11 the first few planes had already done enough damage to get public support for a war, so flight 93 wasn't required to hit the Whitehouse.

OK, some of you have CLEARLY NOT READ my entire theory. You get to "It was shot dwon" and think thats my revalation. Please read my entire post before commenting please.

The theory is the government shot it down and wont admit it due to the fact that the plane MAY NOT have needed to be shot down. Due to the possibility that the passengers successfully regained control of the plane.

So, thats the theory.

Read before you post please.

Originally posted by skippytjc
The theory is the government shot it down and wont admit it due to the fact that the plane MAY NOT have needed to be shot down. Due to the possibility that the passengers successfully regained control of the plane.

The Govt would have remained silent on the flight 93 shoot down regardless of whether or not the passengers had regained control.