I haven't bought into any of the conspiracy theories about the towers being demolished using explosives or anyhting like that but I do think 93 was taken down. By the time it was inbound, the others had already done their damage and witnesses reported seeing other aircraft (military) in the sky at the time of the crash.


So, why lie about it? Well, politics is the answer. It was probably the only thing to do when you have that situation but its still not a popular one with the general public. No one wants to know that the president gave the order to fire on a civilian craft any more than the president wanted to give the order.

Too many coincidences like the rural area it crashed in and the many witnesses to other things that aren't explained in the report. Yeah, I think a CAP brought it down. I think its a tragedy and I'd hate to be the pilot or the commander who gave the order. I'd hate to live with what I did or ordered someone to do even if I knew it saved thousands.

"The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area, but at 9:22 am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville."


So what, the F-16 doesn't carry any missile that could have shot down an aircraft from 60 miles away.

It was shot down. But I dont think they shot it down to save lives, seeing how they let the other planes hit uncahallenged. i think the govornment shot it down because they were afriad it might not get to its target, that it could be landed semi intact or at least where some people would survive. because there would be live witnesseses with some interestinfg stories to tell that might conflict with the rest of the entire day. The possibility of the passengeres succeeding in kicking the # out of the hijackers and landing to announce to the world of what really went down..cant let that #happen.

Any proofs to the "it was shot down" please, besides here say?



regards
seekerof