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

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Um....mirage, that's kinda of the point, about the UAL 93 Story...

I have already explained the timeline....UAL 93 was delayed.....had a long taxi delay, from the gate to the Runway, for Take-Off.

Hence, the 'planned' co-ordinated attacks were slightly thrown off, in the course of time.

Flight UAL 93 was the last hi-jacked airplane of that morning.....and they were behind schedule.

Partly because of the taxi delay before takeoff...and partly because they were only FOUR, and not FIVE bad guys!!!

If you wish to suicide an airplane, into very soft ground, at a very high speed? Well, then you'd see the result of UAL93.

IF, they had happened to dump the airplane into a differetent area, then we's see somethig different....

I understand that, but the point is:

* NORAD already knew there was a problem by now
* Other ATC regions would already know
* The AF already knew
* Even the President knew at that point!

These guys were as close to ready as you can get. They should have already had jets in the air, and given the circumstances, should have been permitted supersonic flight over the US.

Where were they?

Did they even have tanker support?

[edit on 28-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I have already explained the timeline....UAL 93 was delayed.....had a long taxi delay, from the gate to the Runway, for Take-Off.

Hence, the 'planned' co-ordinated attacks were slightly thrown off, in the course of time.

Actually the fighters hadplenty of time to intercept the plane as the NSA documents state.

They had time to intercept and should have intercepted both AA77 and UAL 93.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


OK....I'm trying to keep my powder dry, here.

I am getting mixed messages, regarding UAL93.

We hear, now, that NORAD was sufficiently alerted. An intercept was therefore likely. I've discussed, already, how daylight intercepts occur.

After the WTC1 and WTC2....'Dick' Cheney, who was in Washington took command....the shrub was totally out of the loop, here.

They didn't catch AAL77....did they catch, and shoot down UAL93?

If so....then why hide it? I mean....most Americans would understand!

Preventing UAL93 from reaching its intended target....the Capitol or the White House.....would seem, to most Americans, worth the sacrifice.

OR, is it just better to blame the terrorists?? MAYBE this is the real 'smoking gun'????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If so....then why hide it? I mean....most Americans would understand!

I think that the opposite would be true.

I don't think many people would understand why an airliner had to be shot from the sky. To me, that represents an ultimate failure, by the government to do anything to save the plane. People are conditioned to believe Hollywood movies, so there would be some asking why a tactical team couldn't parachute inside the plane!!!

I especially don't think that the families would understand why it had to happen either. How many billions would they be suing for?

Besides, it's a far more romantic and soppy, heart-tugging story to play out, when people think of the "Let's roll" heros who allegedly died that day.

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza.....I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think you can fully appreciate the emotions of that day, here in the USA.

However, this is why I do not think it was shot down, that far from DC.

If it was going to be shot down, they would wait until the last minute....Shanksville, PA is still about 30 to 40 minutes away from DC, and there is plenty of empty farmland to the West, along the route.

But, regardless....the Flight Recorders tell the whole story, so now it's just a bunch of speculation, after the fact.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, regardless....the Flight Recorders tell the whole story, so now it's just a bunch of speculation, after the fact.......

I agree, they do tell a story.

The question is, how much truth is in that story?

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza....I don't know, I just do not know.

I do not know HOW they could have been faked....especially the ones I have seen.

I do not know why the DFDR and the CVR happen to correspond exactly....I do not know.

I do not know how all of this could have been 'faked'.....

I can only ask.....if there are so many questions, as if this 'whole thing' was somehow orchestrated.....but they got these two Flight Recorders so right.....how did they screw up the rest of it??????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
They didn't catch AAL77....did they catch, and shoot down UAL93?

According to a document i found and in the process of getting, yes they did catchand possibly shot down UAK 93.

I guess they wanted to use some propagande to make people feel better and more patriotic after what had already happened that day so they came up with the story of the passengers trying to get into the cockpit.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Sorry, ULTIMA.....you made a typo. by writing UAK93....but still, I do have a read-out of the Flight Recorder....from UAL93.....it shows the whole flight, until impact.

Pretty compelling.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, ULTIMA.....you made a typo. by writing UAK93....but still, I do have a read-out of the Flight Recorder....from UAL93.....it shows the whole flight, until impact.

Well i have seen (and in the process of getting) a very important, very high level government document that states Flight 93 was intercepted.

Which contridicts the official story that no planes were near flight 93.

And a follow up report that i am trying to get that states a plane came back with 1 missile missing.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

They didn't catch AAL77....did they catch, and shoot down UAL93?

If so....then why hide it? I mean....most Americans would understand!

Preventing UAL93 from reaching its intended target....the Capitol or the White House.....would seem, to most Americans, worth the sacrifice.

OR, is it just better to blame the terrorists?? MAYBE this is the real 'smoking gun'????

Exactly. This was said long ago. For all the apparent incompetence of the AF, this would be a "win" against the terrorists.

The government could have made quite a convincing story. We know that the hijackers allegedly transmitted over the air instead of via the PA system, so it would be quite easy to say that they identified unfamiliar voices on the radio, and they were identified as coming from Flight 93 via (that system that tells ATC which aircraft is transmitting). The flight was intercepted, they disobeyed orders, so were shot down.

Quite plausible, and more plausible than the take-over by the passengers.

What about my other points? I see they're ignored.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Exactly. This was said long ago. For all the apparent incompetence of the AF, this would be a "win" against the terrorists.

Well which looks better to get the people in a patriotic uproar so we can go to war?

1. We shot down a civilian airliner

OR

2. The brave passengers fought back to take over the plane.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Which looks better to get conspiracy theorists in an uproar:

1 - The airliner was brought down when passengers fought back against terrorists on the plane.

or

2 - The Govt secretly shot down the plane, then covered up this fact.

or

3 - The plane was forced to land at another location. Then we launches a missile and had it land at the location in PA. We then killed the passengers, and mutilated them, taking remains to PA to plant, along with enough airplane parts to fool the public.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


No, mirage...I didn't ignore....just didn't address.

I had to go back and review.....you had points about NORAD, ATC regions, the AF response, that the President knew (while he sat there like an idiot for seven minutes!).....and about going supersonic, and if there was tanker support.

Whew!

Well, I'm pretty sure that the supersonic issue is a given, in the nature of an emergency such as that. Tankers....umm, that's fairly time-intensive operation....

ATC, I addressed. NORAD....now, there's an interesting question. I actually am nolt privvy to that information.

Then, what's left is the AF response, which I think I covered.

Will wait to see what ULTIMA can come up with regarding the missing missile on the F-16

Originally posted by gavron
Which looks better to get conspiracy theorists in an uproar:

Thanks for proving my point yet again about believers.

Can't even answer a simple question, and have to be so immature as to post something about a conspiracy that no one is even talking about.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


And, what am I? Chopped liver???

NO......patting each other on the back is not what this site is all about.

Ignoring the Flight Recorder data.....that smacks of trying to fit your assumptions to fit the 'facts'...as you have already concluded them to be.

I will ackowledge the questions.....now seven years later.....but please do NOT distort the facts, using 'revisionist' history techniques.

Thank You

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ignoring the Flight Recorder data.....that smacks of trying to fit your assumptions to fit the 'facts'...as you have already concluded them to be.

So it sounds like you will just ignore a government document that states Flight 93 was intercepted? Which contridicts the official story.

Looks like your the one who had already concluded what the facts are.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Sorry, ULTIMA....you, yourself said you were off to find FOIA documents about the F-16, and the missing missile....

So if I jump the gun, I get flamed???

Don't think that's very fair.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, ULTIMA....you, yourself said you were off to find FOIA documents about the F-16, and the missing missile......

I had already shown the FOIA request sent.

Do not try to put words in my mouth or twist my post.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]