Flight 93 Shootdown - Once kooky theory - now confirmed (again and again)

reply to post by Boone 870

---

Thanks for responding,



Perhaps I do not have the name of the NSOC/NSA personnel to confirm this. I can only infer that you will believe named individuals. I will recall and make use this forceful logic tool



Great generalization. I said they cooperated, not controlled..., or rather "oh great more of that 'let me re-frame you comment so as to attack something you didn't claim'." Time will tell just how warm and fuzzy the family will be over this, I can't speak for them or what they know or were told.



That's a bit sophistic wasn't it? Was my point unclear? Even the 'trained and experienced' professionals at the scene publicly questioned the 'reported' truth - I grant that they recanted (though some didn't) immediately after the official story was developed. But of course, citing them as proof is as questionable as citing the National Security Agency isn't it?



By virtue of the fact that only information you provide is factual, my counter will be an exercise in futility but for starters

from: UA93_Press_Release.html



Such entries can go on and on but I might safely predict your response.



Your dripping sarcasm is not appreciated.

What ABOUT the family members? Are you suggesting they know anything other than they were told? I don't think stepping on their grief is really the issue here - so lay off the derisive nonsense.

You have a right to question my, and argue your, position here. If for some reason you think your apparent exasperation with this subject is an excuse or justification to address the post disrespectfully, I suggest you are mistaken. As for myself, I did not 'tune in' to watch a Penn & Teller routine. Spare me the trite attitude or move on to something that doesn't compel you to act like I personally assaulted you or your 'sensibilities.'

On a lighter note - thanks for being kind enough to address this point by point. I think it makes the exchange easier to manage. I admit some of your questions really merit consideration - but I can't say your 'case' is very convincing.

Take care.


[Mod Edit Repair BB Code]

[edit on 17/4/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by Coach Knight

---

You know Coach, that's another funny thing about this subject. I would truly not object to discovering that it was shot down. It seems prudent from a general security point of view. My general indignation rises from the 'we couldn't handle the truth' mentality and the very real probability that we STILL don't know the truth.

Thanks for the post.

I just have a comment to make to anyone who thinks they have 'inside' information from someone with 'secret' clearance.

Everyone, every single person in the Air Force is capable of Secret clearance. Most have it. I have Secret clearance but that doesn't mean I know anything about anything but what pertains to me directly.

"Need to know" is a much more powerful claim on information than is having a clearance. Because even if you have Top Secret/SCI, you won't get access to any information that you don't have a specific 'need to know.'

Just had to put that out there, pet peeve of mine when clearance gets thrown out there to validate evidence.

Agreed - but in order to work at the National Security Agency you need Top Secret Special Channels Access Clearance - (plus some). We're not talking about operational and equipment technology clearances. This is 'ways and means' clearance. Also, NSOC clearances is also compartmentalized. This is a business I 'needed' to know. I'm not an anonymous source to me. You may doubt me all you like, you have no way to gauge my credibility - and I will respect that. If it boils down to that, I'm sorry I can't oblige you with personal information - although frankly, I doubt I ever would.

I've got to ask this, but before i do IMO there are a lot of things wrong with the events of 911, ok, back to the youtube video of rumsfeld and his slip, ive listened to it 4 or 5 times now, and i cant hear where he lets slip that the US shot the plane down? he is talking about those responsible for bomb attacks around the world on the US, and he includes flight 93 in that statement, he says and those responsible for shooting the plane down over Pennsylvania, can someone tell me where he said that it was the USAF who shot down the plane?

Im not trying to twist this on its ass, but he does say those responsible for this that and the shooting down of the plane etc, i cant understand how that is him saying it was deliberately shot down, please help me understand this?

Every day this becomes more and more confusing, and when you have people altering pentagon video's which show a plane hitting the building on the tape (obvious fake) why should others believe it when it has to be faked to prove a point? Again i do believe it was an inside job, but imstarting to have some doubts because of the lies on both sides.

I'm entirely open to the possibility that we shot the plane down. I don't see where the Rummy quote shows the ANG or AF shot the plane down. I don't see any real evidence that we did, but that was my first impression of the story as it developed. After the hero building of the passengers gained popular acceptance, it would be VERY difficult for the government to come back and relate the story of a shootdown.
Why we would do that if we also caused the catastrophes elsewhere, as is commonly alleged, is beyond me.

reply to post by Maxmars

---

Names would be helpful, but a believable story would be much better.


Speaking of generalizations




Nope, it's a valid argument.

Apparently so. You are the one that said, "information that even untrained eyes recognized as patently false." The question still stands.



I've read the press release and watched PBB3. A whole lot of witness cherry picking and, as far as I know, Rob Balsamo is not a trained accident investigator. Once again, if someone is not trained to recognize a crash scene, how do they know that it does not match the official story?





Sandy Dahl (wife of Jason Dahl) doesn't believe that Flight 93 was shot down. She is a flight attendant and she has heard the CVR on four separate occasions. So, yes, I am suggesting that she knows more than what she was told.

The only problem she has with the official story is that it betrays her husband as rolling over and not fighting back. Source.

The USAF did not shoot down flight 93. Ignorance is like a disease, and it spreads among those with minimal intelligence and little understanding of how things work. (NOT THE POSTER, THE ARTICLE) The pilots that fly for the USAF would have shot down flight 93 had they been given the order in time. But you have too consider the fact that they were not armed, were too late, and heading in the wrong direction. So short of them shooting it down with their imaginary reverse engineered UFO or whatever, what are we left with? The pretty clear fact that the evidence shows that when the passengers started to storm the cockpit, the Islamic nut jobs put the plane into a unrecoverable nosedive.

I wanted too add this as well......Those of you who have/had worked in government back me up here. They don't have 1/4 the power over people you think they do. Sure the people that work at Groom Lake and Hawthorn stay quiet. They are making a TON of money, and have set jobs. Most through contractors. There is far less USAF or NAVY out there than we think. Others that work out there simply DONT CARE. Honestly, they just want to keep their job. If the 'mothership" landed out there and money could be made.............We would get pieces of this thing on ebay, and more pics and video than we could watch. No matter what they signed or who say "stay quiet". If you dont believe me, get a job in gov.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

reply to post by Griff

---

While I believe it is a possibility that flight 93 was shot down, at least it wouldn't surprise me because it was heading the for the White House or the Capital Building.

This is the only 911 "conspiracy" theory that I can buy into. That being said I listen to Rummy speak a couple of times. At no time did he say that 93 was shot down. If you don't paraphrase what he said and listen to the whole piece it is clear that he said if the plane was shot down. I say this because he starts out as saying if the terrorists did this or if the terrorists did that. As for supposed reaction by the back individuals. Clearly they are reacting to something off to their left. If you pay attention, there is no major change to their facial reactions.

I urge you to closely listen to what he says completely. It may take you a couple of times to full understand the context in which he is speaking. This doesn't take anything away from the possibility that 93 was shot down. You just can't equate one with the other.





[edit on 16-4-2008 by EndOfFile]

Flight 93 Crash Site

reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR

---

The Islamic (nut jobs) couldnt keep the passengars out of the
cockpit. How did they crashed the cockpit?

Donald Rumsfeld "The plane that was shot down in PA" talking to the
troops in Iraq.

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a military-type
plane flying around United Airlines flight 93.

Plane engine found miles away from the crash site.

Flight 93 Crash Site

The one thing I don't see is when Devilbush said Iraq instead of afghanistan during a press conference before we even attacked Iraq?

There was a flight 93; there was no plane.

F93 crashed at Shanksville; no plane crashed at Shanksville.

F93 was shot down by an air-to-air missile; there was no plane so it couldn't have been shot down.

F93 was brought down by the passengers; no it wasn't, it was shot down.

After 7 years, if someone wanted to choose a CT belief-system to buy into, where are they supposed to start?

Truthers disunite! As long as all this nonsense continues, the '9/11 Truth Movement' will remain marginalized and ridiculed.

Get yer act together guys. Please.

I think this response is perfect to show how "compartmentalization" is done and why there would not need to be "thousands" of people "in the know" for a psy-op (if it was one) like this to be accomplished.

But, everyone (the debunkers) thinks that when we say "inside job" it means the whole freeking government. Or that is a strawman tactic that they throw out there to easily debunk.

I am compelled to reply to your questions, but it seems ludicrous since you are not inclined to discuss this matter, you simple hold to the 'Nuh-uh, no, I don''t believe it, cherry picking', line of statements - which is sort of unassailable and pointless to address.



Are you of the opinion that an opportunity to present 'a believable story' is forthcoming? Is this supposed to be a vote of confidence that 'believable' stories will be entertained? What would such a 'story' entail?

This is another 'tired' argument technique that contributes nothing to the discussion. You do not represent yourself as willing to 'accept' any story, 'believable' or otherwise. Any problems with the commonly held and propagated 'story' are merely 'cherry picking' unless it supports your argument - in which case it's solid. Can you not bring yourself to find an opportunity within the context of the argument to actually discuss a point of contention, or is your position akin to 'the mountain' to which 'Mohamed must come'? (and, no I'm not a Muslim, I just couldn't think of another phrase)



Sorry to point out the obvious but, yes, that is a generalization. A tired one. It really was never stated by me, but you appears to be mocking the comment based on the perception you 'translated' from the original comment:



The production company used information provided by the government to create that award-winning celluloid 'hoax'. I call it that because it was released without regard to the objections of many - if it were strictly for entertainment purposes it would be no problem, but this was a production with a definite non-entertainment purpose.



Guilty as charged - in my defense I placed that generalization at the very end of my post - not intermingling it with the position I am trying to represent. So, my generalization is a little more a personal statement - not part of the argument. Yours on the other hand, was quite specifically targeted at the poster - you may disagree (and I suppose you will) but I think my generalization is less of a distraction to the debate than yours.

In regards to your 'question' that still stands :



I suppose the reason you ask is because the answer might influence your position?
- Do you feel that finding the tail section and debris miles away, is somehow consistent with the 'almost vertical' nose dive told to the press? (Perhaps it 'popped off' and bounced? - sorry [/sarcasm off)
I don't follow that one should require training to 'note' the inconsistency? Do you contend that the contradictory FDR information is 'cherry-picking' as well, or is it incorrect, or a lie? Would you think that the observations of a random group of unassociated personnel 'on the scene' was justifiably 'discarded' due to the fact that they were 'untrained'? (You never made that statement - so it's not intended to put you on the defensive - the comment was to address 'that tired old argument' that the only people who's questions can be taken seriously are those of 'experts'... who somehow never ask the question anyway)



Interesting that on one hand you declare their analysis as cherry picking, and then you 'cherry pick' the validity of their concerns out due to their 'untrained' status. There are many (many) more such organizations of 'untrained' people who must be eliminated from the mix. That would include your stewardess - although of everyone mentioned here - she is the most directly concerned.

Now the closer

Unfortunately you and some others seem to have 'brought to the table' some distinct preconceptions about this post and it's purpose. I am VERY open to convincing. I am not 'wishing' this were the case, and I have no 'romantic' notions of the conspiracy angle. But rather than providing me with argument supporting your position, you have carried on the same, anti-conspiracy campaign that most other seem embroiled in. I know that you are all 'fed up' ,so to speak, with all this. But that does not invalidate the position I am presenting here.

What I was hoping for was some indication that the 'official' story if it can be called such, addressed the inconsistencies brought up by so many. But instead, I seem to get this weird 'attitude' and very little in the way of anything other than ad hominem attacks and sophistic argumentation on issues that even if resolved don't illuminate the rationale of the mainstream message regarding the event.

You will soon see a thread where I will be taking the contrary position (your position) on a similar issue, perhaps if you can tell me why your argument style takes the form it does. I expect mine will be different, to say the least.

Despite all, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to engage. As usual it has been a good experience for me. I hope I didn't aggravate you too much.

[Mod Edit- Removed code tags]

Mod Note Please Review: Quote Reference

[edit on 17/4/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by Dr Love

---

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you expect the crash site to look like after the plane was deliberately driven into the ground at very high speed?

Oh, and what do you base that expectation upon?

Cheers.

Why would someone want a CT belief system to buy in to?

My off the wall explaination of this is that 9/11 actually was done by the terrorists, but with outside help (possibly from inside our own government). Some elements in our gov. where able to hinder our defenses (or as stated, some element was able to), but they were not able to hinder our complete defenses. Hence, 93 got shot down because it was late in the operation.

Does that make sense?

But conspiracy theorists prefer to think of all those thousands of compartmentalised people somehow living in a complete bubble ever since 9-11, that they are unaware of the events of that day and so can't put two and two together and wonder whether some of their own seemingly innocent actions might not have played a part in the deception.

In the case of flight 93, let's say the evil conspirators really did order the shoot down of the plane over shanksville. The pilot is just following orders and knows he has done nothing wrong, but when he opens his newspaper the next day, or in the following weeks, the story he will read will be the one about the passengers fighting back. The pilot may well be compartmentalised, as may be all the ground support crew (including the weapons crew - "Hey, you fired your missiles?") but they are not unaware of the story which is being reported afterwards.

How about the humble worker who has to place this weird looking bit of beat-up kit in a field in shanksville, only to see on tv in the months after 9-11 that self same bit of kit being claimed to be the fdr from flight 93? Does he still remain in his 'compartment' unaware of his part in the deception?

reply to post by bovarcher

---

Why is it that the "9/11 truth movement" has to "get their act together"? There are many possibilities and many theories. Until all have been concluded to be erroneous but one, there will always be doubt. At least the "truthers" are trying to put evidence together to come up with a theory instead of comming up with a theory and putting the evidence together to coincide with that pre-concluded theory.

Edit: Saying: because the truthers don't "have it together" makes the official version automatically correct is like saying the atheists are correct that there is no God because all the religions out there "don't have it together".



[edit on 4/17/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 4/17/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff

---

Before some zealot decides to get nasty. There is nothing unreasonable about your scenario - as long as you accept that some 'government-level' involvement took place. I, personally, am not yet ready to invoke that particular bogeyman. But there is no doubt that the potential exists for that to be true.

I still maintain, however, that shooting down flight 93 would have been a 'normal' course of action given the stated circumstances - and no degree of 'evil' need be looked for based solely on the shoot down itself.

Of course, the ludicrous 'misinformation' campaign does raise questions about motives and opportunities. But I have noticed - even asking to explore such possibilities seems to raise the hackles of a few - very zealous - personalities here.