The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Sure, it might not hit the hottest spots...but one thing is guaranteed, if you DO put a missile into an airliner, you are going to have a much larger wreckage footprint than there was in Shanksville.

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza.....there is nothing about an 'aerial stunt' in this conversation.

Here....bright daylight, big tall targets (NYC).....kind of a no brainer, even for these guys!


The Pentagon? A descending turn.....and the flight recorder showa it was NOT a smooth descending turn.....but, again.....I used to teach pilots how to turn BEFORE I'D let them Solo!!! They had to know how to make a 'turn about a point', and see how the wind affected them, during that turn....and all of this in the first TEN hours of instruction. (or less, depending on when I 'soloed' them)

SO, a guy.....even if a hack, who has 200 or 300 or even 500 hours....may still be a hack, but at least he soloed!!!! And, could he turn by then?? I think so.

But, this is a thread about one issue....United 93. NOT about the other three airplanes that morning.

UAL93. We have seen the Flight Recorder data....I haven't seen any discrepancies, yet....I'll keep reading. If I see something, you can be certain I will come back to this thread, and say so!

See, I'm not here to play any 'game'.....seeking truth, as all here should.

Yes, I have a certain 'bias'......because I've been there, done that, when it involves flying these airplanes. SO, I think that grants me a bit of 'relevance' to the discussion at hand.

However....I WAS NOT present (obviously) on that date....I was safely at home, in Arlington VA. Yet I, as most did, watched in horror as events unfolded.

I had only one friend of a friend of a friend involved, as a victim....he was the First Officer of AAL77.....his name was David. I had never met him, I only learned of the "three-degrees" of separation, after the fact.

I will say this, though. I cannot conceive of ANY pilot knowingly complying WITH the hi-jackers, if they knew the ultimate goal OF the hi-jackers.

I can conceive, based on training and thinking PRIOR to these events.....that a pilot would think.....stay in the seat, and keep control, at all costs.....because it used to be the common consensus that any hi-jacker was afraid to die....that they wanted to extort, for a political agenda, or whatever.....THIS is what we were told!!

Remember the TWA hi-jacking? Back in the 1970s? The pilots complied....they landed, re-fueled....took off again....a guy from the Navy was found, and killed, and thrown off the airplane....this was a big story a few decades ago....and formed the 'Common Strategy' that existed, until 2001.

Things are much, much different now, of course.








[edit on 8/20/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

Well according to my sources Flight 93 was intercepted. Also at least 1 plane came back with a empty missile rail.

The one plane that came back back without missiles on the rails was one of the three Langley fighters. Two of them were alert and had missiles and the third plane was not on alert and didn't have any missiles. The third plane is the one that everyone assumes to have shot down flight 93. It never had any missiles to shoot.

So there is a jet missing a missile and there is a missile sized crater in Shanksville. Hmmmmm.

No plane crashed in shanksville. Research this yourself.

No, the jets that took off with missiles, still had those missiles when they landed. The jet that took off without missiles, still did NOT have any missiles on it when it landed.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

And if I remember correctly, the jets that were first airborne from Andrews were discussing how they would RAM a hostile aircraft.

You're right. www.freerepublic.com...

Two of the first F-16s had 500 rounds of TP ammunition and the other one had 105 rounds.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swampfox.....

'Ram'!!!

OK....I can conceive of an 'unarmed' jet that might be 'aimed'....and the pilot then ejects.....is this what happened???

I mean, I like 'Star Trek' as much as the next guy.....but to think an Air Force or ANG guy or gal would actually sacrifce is/her life?

WHEN you have an ejection handle, right there??

Come on....it spreads out....and implies incredulity......

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt\
You don't have any CREDIBLE sources.

Its really getting fun and easy to prove how immature you are.

Are you for real. Do you even know what a Crittic is? Do you know that it is one of most important government documents there is?

All you do is repaet what the media tells you instead of being a intelligent adult and thinking for yourself and trying to find out what really happened that day.




[edit on 21-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Please...DISCUSS the topic, not the Posters!!!

I had no right to say that.....but I've seen that reminder so many times, just had to repeat it.

OK, Carry on! (another cute phrase....) my other is...."ENGAGE"!!!!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Are you for real. Do you even know what a Crittic is? Do you know that it is one of most important government documents there is?

Yes... and YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE pertaining to flight93.

GET IT??? You are not in possession of it, nor is there ANY proof that one exists.

"Oh..do you know that I know a guy that knows a guy that overheard a guy talking about a report he read that stated the moon was made of cheese?"






[edit on 21-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Please discuss the topic and refrain from personal sniping and off topic remarks.

Thank you.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here's a little more detail, WW.

He admits there was no assurance that a 5-sec. burst of lead slugs could slice an air transport's wing off, though. His alternative was "to hit it--cut the wing off with my wing. If I played it right, I'd be able to bail out. One hand on the stick and one hand on the ejection handle, trying to ram my airplane into the aft side of the [airliner's] wing," he said. "And do it skillfully enough to save the pink body . . . but understanding that it might not go as planned. It was a tough nut; we had no other ordnance."

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone, that sends chills up and down my spine!

An F-16, missing a wing.....is not going to be a very stable platform to eject from, I'd think.....very, very interesting.....

Thanks for sharing.

EDIT.....I'm trying to visualize, from the fighter's perspective.....I guess even if the F-16 was banked slightly, to drop his wing down to hit the other wing....ejection would be safe, if done immediately at impact......


BUT, still......'Shiver me timbers!!!'
[edit on 8/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 8/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Yes... and YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE pertaining to flight93.
of it, nor is there ANY proof that one exists.

Well you really keep proving you cannot read.

I have posted evidence of the document and have posted the evidence that i have sent FOIA request to get the document.

WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

Did you see the document you filed the FOIA for? y/n

Have you spoken to anyone that has seen this document? y/n

Have you any evidence besides the hearsay from a website you linked us to that shows this document exists? y/n

The answer to all 4 questions is NO!

You have ZERO EVIDENCE .... not a little bit... not a small trace.. NONE

ZILTCH ...NADA...

That was 3 questions.

You lose.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Did you see the document you filed the FOIA for? y/n

Yes i have seen it.

Have you spoken to anyone that has seen this document? y/n

Yes in a discussion.

Have you any evidence besides the hearsay from a website you linked us to that shows this document exists? y/n

The source i posted has not been debated. So the evidence of the document stands.

The answer to all 4 questions is NO!

Gee how can 1 person be so wrong so many times?

reply to post by Hamlin


HAMLIN....it seems you got one star.

HMMM...wonder who did that!?

Our Three Amigos have spent the money to help insure, not they needed to before, but because it seems many have questioned....

An Insurance Polilcy.....so you'll feel better, and can sleep at night....

now. go to sleep. 'my friends'.....and sleep well.....


Best....WW

You realize this talk of ramming a jet to bring it down shows that the Pentagon aircraft could not have hit FIVE light poles without bringing itself down??

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage....if you are referring to AAL 77, at the pentagon....the you are off topic.


NOW....if you don't think that an airplane can hit five light poles, and carry on???

Then you should (A) make a new thread or (B) go back to understand Kinetic Energy.....ain't difficult!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW....if you don't think that an airplane can hit five light poles, and carry on???

Funny though about a report of a plane hitting 1 light pole and being brought down after a section of the wing was sheared off.