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

reply to post by _Del_


I'd have to agree that the simplest thing would have been remote controlling the real planes. But, consider that airlines inspect their planes before flight. How could a plane with remote controll ability installed go undetected?

When considering this little obstical, the other alternative would be to switch the planes at some point.

Just sayin.

The question remains what happened to the original planes in your theory.

In a post above mine someone states that they incapacitated the crew and passengers and remotely flew the aircraft over the ocean to be shot down. Seems alot easier to remotely fly them into buildings than fly them over the ocean, shoot them down, fly different planes into buildings and plant DNA evidence.
Seriously, people believe this stuff?

reply to post by Griff


Yeah, good call. I forgot about that. That is interesting to say the least. A way to get rid of the bodies, in a way consistent with the official story, leading to the DNA evidence they supposedly had?

Originally posted by _Del_
But if the REAL planes were all remote controlled out over the atlantic, why not just remote control those planes into the targets? Wouldn't that be easier than having eight remote control aircraft and crash four OTHER planes into targets and then have to shoot down the REAL aircraft later?
I know the government is notoriously inefficient, but doesn't this seem remarkably so even for them?

But that is just it. It wasn't inefficient. The four planes with real passengers were used in the "war game" that day as intended targets being called "hijacked commercial flights" (which it turns out really were). They needed real targets that were intended to be taken out which left no possibility for them reaching an intended geographical target. Thus, the other four planes (mocked-up copies of the other 4) would have been free to crash into their targets in NY and DC. This almost went completely to plan, until the Happy Hooligans decided to take out the Flight 93 (drone) even after being told to stand down by VP Cheney. Yes, some of us do believe in this, just as some belief the "unbelievable" official story.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by percievedreality]

reply to post by Boone 870


First off - I recognize that posting is a hassle in that you sometimes can't help but 'speed read' things through and end up realizing later that you didn't catch an error or misread something earlier - I am guilty of this, and I think many can relate. Also, my 'brainchild' idea to enumerate topics turned out to be kludgey because you don't want to quote a partial quote of a partial quote so sometimes you answer something and the readers only reaction can be - huh? Sorry I got us in this convoluted exchange. But - the spirit is willing - so I'll move on:

My point about the made for TV movie was just meant to encourage a discussion about how 'eager' the media was to capitalize on this event, and how 'willingly' the DHS was to cooperate. Yet there seems no real concern about the groups of people (nut-cases some called them) to decry a dramatization of the event without 'full disclosure'. That was one of the 'expected' topics to arise from the 'shoot down theory'. You have asked who objected, and what were their objections. But why litter this thread with links and verbiage you will simply discount as cherry picking and unacceptable? I would rather we could stipulate that you accept there are those with whose objections you disagree and move on to a more logic-based approach to this argument.

After all, some have already posted other sources and links that address that very question, certainly there is no room here for more of the same. I suppose there might be some magical post out there that holds the single point of fact or evidence that might make you think about reconsidering your seemingly rock-solid acceptance that the plane wasn't shot down, but I know you doubt that, and so do I (if only for a different reason).

...no witness of the crash, or the crash scene, has stated their expertise in deciphering the difference between a normal crash and a shootdown"

That's a trap - how many witness of the crash were there (or the crash scene)? is one question; 'their expertise in deciphering the difference between a normal crash and a shootdown' is an entirely different matter. Crash scene witnesses are all we have to go on, no? I won't revisit your recent exchanges where you basically extol the right to include and exclude whatever information you see fit (I heard that was called 'cherry-picking') but I can tell you - if you stand firmly behind that practice then you are purposefully wasting my time and avoiding the intent of this post. I am hoping I am not getting a clear reading of your rational behind 'picking' and 'choosing.' This is a vitally important point to me because I believe I have honored your objections to the post both as honorably and respectfully as anyone should be required. I want some of that respect back. Or I will have no choice but to exclude you from 'my little world' via the ignore button - nothing personal, but I'm not here to play sophist.

Why do you use the press instead of the NTSB data?

Very valid question, but misleading. I use both - I also use common sense, common knowledge, informed opinion, speculative reasoning, as well as inductive and deductive logic. I may be no master of the art, and I may make bad assumptions. I may also suffer from flawed information, or even prejudicial bias. But I don't claim that I can be master of what's relevant and what isn't. Relevancy is self evident (just like ignorance).

In fact, if you are claiming that the NTSB data is the source or your position, I have a number of questions that until now, you and others seem unwilling to discuss. Usually, the questions are rebuked because I, and others who raise similar questions, are not 'experts'.

Let me know if you want to take that direction. I will gladly oblige, especially if there's a chance you are actually going to contribute something substantive to the 'theory' regarding the debris field, and what was found where.

There is nothing contradictory about the FDR. There are a few witnesses that contradict the altitude of the airplane. None of them mention a shootdown.

Why does that seem like a knee-jerk statement? Perhaps the 'contradictory' part of the phrase is catching me up. I didn't expect the FDR to contradict itself. The data is however continually being questioned and certain physical claims don't coincide with the 'interpretation' provided by the 'experts'. Perhaps none of those 'questioners' claim shoot down - but then, are you so sure? Some of the above provided links indicate that there was some questions about the nature of the crash which did beg the question. But I have to give you the mark on this - because none of them would even publicly entertain questions of that nature.

You have said that you know why the pilots for 9/11 truth did not use the alleged* Sturtz claim as part of their position statement. Is it because he disagreed? Is it because they feared that the 'expert' witness of an event proclaimed to have no witnesses would blast their position out of the water? I think you might be overestimating Farmer Brown's value as a witness, Isn't that my job?

Thanks for sticking with this. Take care.

* I say alleged because the reporter didn't quote him. A minor point, know, but I can't help but wonder why not.



We, you and I, for the purposes of this debate, need to come to some agreement on how I intended to apply the word 'theory' or each of us can twist and manipulate the argument int a colossal waste of effort (but I just know there are those who would make that claim already.)

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by percievedreality

 

One thing to add that is interesting. Remember the plane that crashed in Queens like a week after 9/11? The number of passengers on that plane was the exact same number of passengers on the 4 planes on 9/11. Just another possibility of what happened to them.

BTW, notice how alot of the passengers and flight attendants were confirmed by DNA. Could have been used as a way to plant DNA evidence at the scene of 9/11. Broken and burnt from an airplane crash and all.

I can't believe I never noticed that. But then, there had to have been a bunch of families grieving those lost on THAT place. Wouldn't this kind of set up a circular, never ending chain of unaccounted deaths?

Originally posted by Maxmars I didn't expect the FDR to contradict itself. The data is however continually being questioned and certain physical claims don't coincide with the 'interpretation' provided by the 'experts'.

What experts? What problems?

If this thread is just your theory based on hearsay, to weave a fantasy for all. Ignore physical evidence and use hearsay to base a = fantasy.

There are no experts who have a problem with the FDR data. You have no physical evidence to support the missing missile.

At least the OP has a topic where there could be real evidence, there could be missile fragments, a FDR showing the missile impact (ie engine failure), a plane with a missing missile, an inventory missing a missile, a pilot, a wingman, a missile loader, the supply system with a missile missing, ATC people watching the Blips across PA, witnesses seeing a missile fly, witnesses hearing a missile sonic boom, all the hard evidence someone could find if it happen, and get a Pulitzer Prize for the cover-up! But there is no evidence, it is just made up.

Originally posted by percievedreality
But that is just it. It wasn't inefficient. The four planes with real passengers were used in the "war game" that day as intended targets being called "hijacked commercial flights" (which it turns out really were). They needed real targets that were intended to be taken out which left no possibility for them reaching an intended geographical target. Thus, the other four planes (mocked-up copies of the other 4) would have been free to crash into their targets in NY and DC. This almost went completely to plan, until the Happy Hooligans decided to take out the Flight 93 (drone) even after being told to stand down by VP Cheney. Yes, some of us do believe in this, just as some belief the "unbelievable" official story.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by percievedreality]

So why wouldn't they just fly the four original planes to crash into the intended targets? That is ridiculous.

Originally posted by beachnut

If this thread is just your theory based on hearsay, to weave a fantasy for all. Ignore physical evidence and use hearsay to base a = fantasy.

There are no experts who have a problem with the FDR data. You have no physical evidence to support the missing missile.

At least the OP has a topic where there could be real evidence, there could be missile fragments, a FDR showing the missile impact (ie engine failure), a plane with a missing missile, an inventory missing a missile, a pilot, a wingman, a missile loader, the supply system with a missile missing, ATC people watching the Blips across PA, witnesses seeing a missile fly, witnesses hearing a missile sonic boom, all the hard evidence someone could find if it happen, and get a Pulitzer Prize for the cover-up! But there is no evidence, it is just made up.

I always seem to be 'on the defensive' with you don't I?

I have already stated that I CHOOSE to believe and stand by (on trust) the NSA sources. Yes that is hearsay, and I never stated otherwise. There's no prevaricating around the bush there. I know these people. They don't lie. - But I'm not 'basing' anything on that - I can't transfer my trust of a source to you, any attempt to do so would result in an empty debate off topic. Thats a trap I have no use for even discussing.

I disagree that you, or anyone else for that matter, can declare 'no experts have a problem with the FDR data' unless they are unaware or simply not willing to accept the many real-life aviation pilots with scores of years of experience, physicist and engineers, etc who's web sites and 'associations' and petitions are all over the place for all to see are not experts. What does it take to be an expert in your mind? What qualifications makes a suitable expert - so that I can muster up more links and sources for you? I am guessing the Pilots for 9/11 Truth are out, I figured since this was their profession at least their objections would be met with respect, but evidently I was wrong. Now I ask you - are you trying to say that If I find an expert (by your definition) you will accept the 'objections' and actually address them? If so, take a stand, define the expert, and then we'll see. For now, all I see is more of the same rhetoric and no contribution to the thread at all.

I can't seem to follow the logic that if the flight was shot down someone somewhere would necessarily have a magic clipboard that would register a missing missile. Not all aircraft are subject to regular USAF controls. Not all weapon systems in this country are 'up for audit'. And, assuming you spent a few minutes reviewing the NORAD documents and tapes, you might have noticed, we aren't exactly paragons of professionalism 24-7. In a country where you can 'misplace' nuclear weapons, air-to-air missiles are chump change. I never said there was a missing missile, you said that. You debunkers need to get a new routine, that one is getting really silly.

By the way, I just want consistent disclosure and transparent oversight of the investigation. All the rest, like the truth, will follow that.

Man, you're angry. No one is pissing in your cornflakes here, be a little less aggressive will you?


[edit on 18-4-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by _Del_
So why wouldn't they just fly the four original planes to crash into the intended targets? That is ridiculous.

You are missing the fact that there was ongoing war games being played on that day that involved the scenario of "hijacked commercial airlines". Proper protocol would have been to intercept and then engage the aircraft. Thus the four original planes were used for this purpose, a war-game or a training exercise with specifics related to the above. The drones were used to target the geographical targets in DC and NY because they had been equipped previously with more destructive (than normal commercial 757s) munitions. Does that make sense?

I have a question, has anyone found that elk's lodge speech of rummy's where he says 'we' shot down the plane in pa?

I found the other one, where, from the context of the sentence he says that the terrorists -shot- it down. Still a strange slip, but I'd like to see the one where he says 'we' shot it down.

To me, that would be far more damning. Although I have no problem with them shooting down a hijacked plane, I have a problem with them lying about it.

Apologies for the double post, but I was reading another part of the thread.

If a jet fired a missile I don't think it would be noticed, not by everyone you might think would notice it.

The pilot is your number one guy who knows whether or not he shot something down. Whoever relayed the order to him would know as well. I can't comment on whether or not a radar operator would notice, maybe someone else can.

Certainly people on the ground in the area would notice either an explosion or smoke coming from the hit plane. But that's where it ends.

Aircraft maintainers, including weapons loaders, don't typically know the mission the pilot's on. You might know, if you asked, but launching jets out every day, you fall into the pattern, and there's no real reason you want to know where they're going unless they're going to be gone TDY, Depot, or overseas. Not knowing what mission they're on, you just do your job, you take down the bombs, or you reload the bombs.

It's not as if they don't fire weapons on a daily basis. Maybe in this case it's a live round, but you have no reason to question it. If the jets were up in the air for training ops with live rounds on board, why wouldn't they be fired? If they were scrambled into the air, well, then you wonder if they got to shoot something down.

So if we're talking about jets that were up in the air for training, there's only a few people who would know what happened.

Originally posted by Sovereign797
Although I have no problem with them shooting down a hijacked plane, I have a problem with them lying about it.

I have a problem with "them" shooting down a hijacked plane with a passenger revolt underway. From what I've gleamed from the medias portrayal of flt. 93 and the many victims family accounts of phone contacts, some of those same people were in contact with authorities explaining the circumstances under way in real time.

Also, monitoring those calls would be within the realm of possibility for the situation at that point after everything that had happened previously in the day.

So I ask again, why shoot down the plane with a passenger revolt going on?

I also have a problem with "them" lying about any aspect of this part of the attack.

reply to post by Maxmars

Post NSA saying 93 was shot down and their evidence to support it. Like RADAR tapes, recordings of ATC, and the missile supply trace back. When did the NSA say it, I must of missed the official announcement that was what happen?

Got an expert who has a problem with the FDR? No. You would list them. But since they only post hearsay, false statements you are wasting your time. P4t? They can not even do simple physics, for a maneuver that takes 1.7 Gs, they say it takes 11.2 Gs. It seems you may be using their ideas now; and thus the lack of evidence.

What specific problems do you see with the FDR? Just talk will not hack it. Even witness statements confirm the FDR. Fantasy, is the missile that is missing. In the end you will talk and not show the evidence, since there is non. If someone really had a problem with the FDR, there would be real news about it. Not just hearsay fictional accounts on the internet from "expert" who can not even tell me the last readings, or DME, or the VOR station tuned in at impact.

Oh, NORAD is not up for audit?, NORAD does keep track of missiles. You are saying a missile is not tracked. Do you make this up as you go. The nukes? Good example, they found them missing and found where they were transported. Oops, things are tracked; looks like the guys who think, like you think the USAF thinks, LOST their JOBs. Darn, they were suppose to track those things better. That shows even when the USAF messes up, they find it. A missile is tracked, it would be known it had been used. If you want to cut the military again, after saying you were not going to cut it, is kind of … I recommend not mentioning things the military caught on their own, when you are trying to show they are missing a missile. Wait, this is just a theory based on things said before all the facts were in after 9/11, but you are saying it because of some made up story, hearsay, and what the NSA said on what date?

Angry, no who gets angry when people pass around false information about 9/11, based on hearsay, and no evidence. Who is angry with people spreading hearsay as the truth? Not me. I talk this way to my brothers and my father when they sling bs around.

So you have no evidence but keep making up stories. It is clear the OP is a based on a made up story about a missing missile. But then all I am going on is the lack of evidence to support it, and the hard evidence in the FDR and the debris path in PA of a classic high speed impact at 41.1 degrees, maybe more, the FDR only takes readings each second on pitch angle. The impact angle may have been more, but you can see the kind of angle in the leading edge of the dirt. And you can get a better idea of the angle, or confirm it with the buried bodies and plane parts. Physics.

reply to post by Maxmars

We, you and I, for the purposes of this debate, need to come to some agreement on how I intended to apply the word 'theory' or each of us can twist and manipulate the argument int a colossal waste of effort (but I just know there are those who would make that claim already.)

Here we are five pages into this thread and you have not posted anything specific as to why you believe a shoot down is possible.

Stop beating around the bush and post something specific.

Your tactics for debating are growing old very very fast. On with it.

reply to post by beachnut


I'm sorry..., you're all over the map. Please have someone grammar check your post because I have a real problem following your meaning. You and your buddy are just playing a cat and mouse game. You can;t argue because you don't know squat, and your too arrogant to accept that none wants to hear from you. It is tiresome. I'll do more research for your benefit when you do dome of your own for me. If you can't argue in quid pro quo, be a spectator or address someone else, no one is here to 'dance' to your tune. I was trying to open a discussion where people contribute... you just want to be a freeper.

Too bad.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Maxmars

 

We, you and I, for the purposes of this debate, need to come to some agreement on how I intended to apply the word 'theory' or each of us can twist and manipulate the argument int a colossal waste of effort (but I just know there are those who would make that claim already.)

Here we are five pages into this thread and you have not posted anything specific as to why you believe a shoot down is possible.

Stop beating around the bush and post something specific.

Your tactics for debating are growing old very very fast. On with it.

You and your buddy are just playing a cat and mouse game. You can't argue because you don't know squat, and your too arrogant to accept that none wants to hear from you. It is tiresome. I'll do more research for your benefit when you do dome of your own for me. If you can't argue in quid pro quo, be a spectator or address someone else, no one is here to 'dance' to your tune. I was trying to open a discussion where people contribute... you just want to be a freeper.

((Why the double post? because you earned no better in my book))

reply to post by Maxmars

You and your buddy are just playing a cat and mouse game. You can't argue because you don't know squat, and your too arrogant to accept that none wants to hear from you. It is tiresome. I'll do more research for your benefit when you do dome of your own for me. If you can't argue in quid pro quo, be a spectator or address someone else, no one is here to 'dance' to your tune. I was trying to open a discussion where people contribute... you just want to be a freeper.

((Why the double post? because you earned no better in my book))

Still nothing specific. What's the hold up?

You can call me arrogant and tell me that I don't know squat all that you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented anything to bolster your shoot down theory. On with it.

Originally posted by Maxmars
You and your buddy are just playing a cat and mouse game. You can't argue because you don't know squat, and your too arrogant to accept that none wants to hear from you. It is tiresome. I'll do more research for your benefit when you do dome of your own for me. If you can't argue in quid pro quo, be a spectator or address someone else, no one is here to 'dance' to your tune. I was trying to open a discussion where people contribute... you just want to be a freeper.

You actually did research to discover the shoot down lie about 93? All the real evidence shoots down this false story started by freepers all over the US. Even my CT minded brother said he had it from a friend, twice removed, that the USAF shot down 93. I had to remind him I was in the USAF, with a top secret clearance, and it was a lie. Glad to see I was right, now the story is even weaker, I thought the friend of friend who knows this guy in the AF was so strong in the first place. But now after seeing your lack of research on the subject. I am surprised you can keep a straight post with such a veiled intelligent OP asking for discussion on what is false information, proven wrong with evidence.

I mean, your OP implies the shoot down as a done deal. Are you really discussing the fantasy aspects of a false story? I guess you are too intellectual for my poor grammar skills, which show the shoot down false. I am not sure saying it right gives someone the dibs on being correct on an event that never happened. Am I dismissed for being obtuse with English? My poor grammar, not news to me. Looks like your best research skills have discovered my big problem. At least I give you an excuse to dismiss evidence, real evidence proving the shoot down to be a false story. Just because I said it wrong. Cool. Being an engineer and a pilot may not be the best fields for improving grammar. But it sure comes in handy to spot bs about flying and physics a mile away.

The research is in. No missile missing, no shoot down, no fighter close to 93. The story of the shoot down was made up out of thin air. Like in the fog of battle, no one really had evidence, someone just said it. I can not believe you are propagating the false story now, 6 years later, still absent of evidence.

At least you picked a fantasy to discuss that could be proven, right or wrong, with hard evidence;
… the supply system would be missing a missile, it there was on missing
… supersonic flight path would be heard, the missile could have been seen if there had been one,
… missile fragments could be found, if there had been one
… pilots who shot the missile would be able to tell us, if there was one
… the wingman could tell us all how it went down, if there had been a missile fired
… ATC could explain how the vectored the fighters to 93, if there had been fighters there
… RADAR tapes would show the tracks for us to see the intercept that wasn't
… But no one can even produce the person who made up the story
… FDR that shows no missile impact
… impact and crash scene that shows not signs of missile attack
… what else do you have from your extensive research?

freeper, oh?

I think you are doing a great job discussing a the false report. Good post.

Why are you so worried about proving this story? Let's just say Flight 93 was shot down. So what? It had to come down either way. Would you rather the terrorists had succeeded? It is policy to stop such a flight by the most expedient means possible. If they had managed to shoot down the flights that hit the WTC, they would have saved thousands of lives. Oh wait, that's right, the WTC was bombed... Of course it that is true, then why shoot down a plane to support a theory that planes weren't involved?