But why would they shoot it down? I dont understand?

They wouldnt have to lie about it.

They shot it down so that it wouldn't hit it's target - White House, Camp David, whatever

Why would they lie about it? You have to remember the "official" reasons it crashed, the "heroes" aboard the plane who "stopped" the terrorists.

I'm not in anyway trying to offend the victims, they did try the best they can and I do believe they helped the situation, they might of actually survived if we didn't shoot them down.

However, populists and evil sadistic people who diserve to be burned alive make movies like United 93, not to show everyone how they saved the white house, because there have been so many documentaries and such, it's just a populist made movie to make tons of money off of people's death.

It's not like the Hamburg Cell, that movie is about 9/11, and it's trying to show how the terrorists (supposedly) planned the whole thing, starting in 1998 ending in 2001.

Originally posted by Tasketo
But why would they shoot it down? I dont understand?

They wouldnt have to lie about it.

What would your reaction and others be, had they said they shot it down?
Regardless if there was danger for anyone, the first thought going through minds would be... "You did what!"
Even if it was to save thousands of lives on the ground, your first reaction would be upsetting and they would suffer from that anger and dont want that.They need your vote!

I told this story I'm about to tell you in a post a long time ago and I'll tell you again here in this thread.

My father is a photographer for a newspaper here in Southern Ontario, he had an assignment to fly with sick kids to Orlando on 9/11 and was in the air when it all happened. Well his flight obviously was rerouted and grounded not long after the planes hit the WTC, when the plane landed there was FBI and local law enforcement all over the plane to make sure there was no threat. Well after they cleared the plane some of the journalists (including my father) went up to either an FBI agent or one of the local police officers (not sure which one) and he told them that two planes hit the WTC, one plane hit the Pentagon and one plane was shot down.

For me personally if there is any real conspiracy with 9/11 it would have to be with flight 93 and a cover up of them shooting it down.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by d1k]

Good points I guess.

The should have just said the truth.

The plane was hijaked, the people on board were dead anyway as far as I see it. So they prevented it from hitting its target. Its the right thing to do.

But, Its easy for me to say that, I wasnt on that plane.

Originally posted by Killtown
Does anybody still think that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville???

Yes, of course I do. And so do the MANY eyewitness' on the ground
who saw the plane fly extremely fast and low overhead, and saw
the explosion and the smoke ....

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uh no. 0 degrees would be flat on the belly. It crashed at a NINETY degree angle. Straight up and down.

Actually that's absolutely correct if the eye witness account is accurate, because it was inverted...so it really was at a POSITIVE 90 degree angle of attack! Only it's reference frame was inverted a NEGATIVE 180 degrees to zenith!

[edit on 4-13-2006 by Valhall]

These pictures to me just add more credibility to the shot down theory. I do not have a problem with the crater pictures. The plane did a nose dive doing 500 + and on impact it would have crushed itself like a can, and the remains of the jet with that much fuel would have melted (alot of aluminum)

Now, one engine was also found 'away' from the main site, and was the other never found or maybe it was never reported? The story that arose about the man who supposedly shot down flight 93 was that he used sidewinder missles to bring it down.

There were eyewitness reports of loud booms or whistling(revving some described it as) and then no engine sound, loss of control and the crash of the aircraft. There is the report by the person in the bathroom that there was a loud boom and now there is smoke kust before the crash.

it is not laughable evidence, it is credile, and the release of this material will only help to find the truth and continue the discussion about matters such as this.

The timeline for 93 is what to look at.

Originally posted by esdad71
There were eyewitness reports of loud booms or whistling(revving some described it as) and then no engine sound, loss of control and the crash of the aircraft. There is the report by the person in the bathroom that there was a loud boom and now there is smoke kust before the crash.

According to the transcript for Flight 93, it was claimed that there was a bomb(s) on the flight. If that is true, is it not also a possibility that the "loud boom or whistling" and then smoke could have been caused by a detonation of one of those bombs or the bomb?

I can see why the government may have felt the need to destroy the aircraft, but beyond that, till further credible evidences are produced, it simply is a theory. To me, the detonation of a bomb or bombs being carried on the aircraft by one of the hijackers seems another viable possibility, especially enlight of the Flight 93 transcripts being released.






seekerof

Yes, of course I do. And so do the MANY eyewitness' on the ground

There have also been reports of several eyewitnesses whom claim to have seen a "military-type" aircraft flying around Flight 93.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
And so do the MANY eyewitness' on the ground
who saw the plane fly extremely fast and low overhead, and saw
the explosion and the smoke ....

Ok, huge problem here.
The plane is LOW, OVERHEAD, and FLYING EXTREMELY FAST.
Also the plane is FULL of JET FUEL (explosive, burns for a while)

Given this I ask, How can a plane flying "overhead" at a high speed impact the ground at 90 degrees?

The best it would do is hit something like 60 degrees if it was observed as flying overhead.
Any higher an angle than that and whoever saw the crash also died in it

The other question i pose is, Where are the fires?
Anyone watch the towers?
Remember the fires burning in the offices that lead to the collapse of the buildings via weakening the infrastructure (official story)?

Ok, so the feds admit that jet fuel burns, so where is the jet fuel in the pics of this crash? Where are the fires?


Also, if you manage to win back the plane from the "terrorists", why wouldn’t you try another phone call and contact the police and have them tell you how to LAND the plane???

The answer is simple, the "fearless individuals" on the plane never launched a counter attack, never got through on their cell phones, and possibly never existed.

Ever seen the movie "Wag the Dog"?
It's about a president who creates a fake war to cover up a sex scandal much the same way Clinton bombed Iraq whenever the light hit him in a bad way.

I know its a stretch, but how hard would it be to Photoshop some pics and pay off some "family members"

For that matter how hard would it be to stage the entire incident, fly your own planes into the buildings, pay some people to be upset, all as pretense for a counterattack that sets up a base in Afghanistan and long as we're there lets attack Iraq too

The oil companies (Bush's good old buddies) made record profits this year
Halliburton (Dick's chums) made tons of cash off the war

The middle class is quickly evaporating as living and transportation prices increase while wages stay the same.

Every time in history that the middle class completely disappeared, the following happens:
1-The poor get abused by the rich
2-The poor get tired of it and revolution ensues

Retired bartender & Army Veteran, 74, Staten Island, N.Y.
....cluttering his cramped apartment in Staten Island, N.Y.



Why then does he have a Florida license?
In that memorial page, it says nothing of Florida.You would think it would say he at least lived there a short period if he did, no?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by SMR]

~200,000 of steel disinigrates on impact, yet they find all of these papers.

More proof of the shot down FACT?

Maybe he had retired from driving and just carried the licence around as ID.

Maybe he retired to Florida for parts of the year.

That is an old FLDL and you used to be able to send in a form and you apply the renewal to the back of the license with a sticker. Now you must trade it in on a new one.

This gives more cred to the shoot down scenario in my opinion.