What do you think of this? Was it a slip?

Shot down?

What do you make of this?


Edit to embed the link: It didn't work

[edit on 31-10-2006 by mrwupy]

me thinks you reposted the same thread....scroll down 911 conspiracies thread.

I liked it the second time even more though.

opps sorry didnt even see it my bad.

How about the one were bush said Sheik Qalediabubaba (i cant keep track of em all) talked about, "planting explosives high enough in the towers so that people above were trapped and couldnt get out".....


ive noticed that wheneve bush talks about terrorist, he really seems to be talking about himself;

"the terrorist want to destroy our freedoms"

just like bush did with Patriot Act and Military commisions act that made Habeus a Corpse.

"They misnamed the war on terror, it outta be called the the the struggle against ideologicla extremists that seek to use terror as a means to manipulate the public psyche in order to achieve thier goals"

just like bush does everytime he says, "Vote for us or you're gonna die"

or how he describes terrorists as a "shadowy group of evil" just like him and his handlers....

I don't doubt that flight 93 was shot down. But on the other hand I don't think this was a slip-up admitting to it either.

If the plane was shot down - it was for the best. Not because it killed people, but it saved lives on the ground.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
I don't doubt that flight 93 was shot down. But on the other hand I don't think this was a slip-up admitting to it either.

If the plane was shot down - it was for the best. Not because it killed people, but it saved lives on the ground.

That's not the point though. I think we'd all agree that shooting it down would've been the right thing to do. But it if WAS shoot down and they the govt. was still keen on covering it up, then it does two things..

1) suggests that there's a good reason for covering it up that would be worth the risk of doing so, and

2) substantiates motive to cover up other aspects of 9/11 for the same reason.

Can you not put 2 and 2 together here, doctor? This wasn't just 'damage control' for NORAD, it's part of something they couldn't admit to, or it would contradict the official story. I doubt the public would have a problem with them shooting it down after all that had happened, so why did they cover it up? How do we tolerate knowing an engine was found a mile away from where it crashed (nose dived) and still not question the whole thing?

If they shot Flight 93 down then surely someone would have come forward saying they shot it down by now.

I have always wondered about this since the attacks on 9-11. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but no shott down orders where given to pilots. Where they? Another thing is that if Flight 93 was in fact shot down like what has been said, where did that order come from? Or was it a rogue pilot that shot the jetliner down against orders?

Already been discussed: U.S. Secretary of Defense admits Flight 93 was Shot Down

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
I have always wondered about this since the attacks on 9-11. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but no shott down orders where given to pilots. Where they? Another thing is that if Flight 93 was in fact shot down like what has been said, where did that order come from? Or was it a rogue pilot that shot the jetliner down against orders?

That could be the lone reason for covering it up, the fact that some pilot could've known what had happened already, knew the plane was hijacked and heading towards DC, and shot it down to prevent another attack from happening.

As mentioned by "watch_the_rocks", there is an existing thread on this topic.

Please add to the ongoing discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.

closing ...