gov't shot it down.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
i heard this theory about flight95 and wanted to share it with you. We were all talking about the 9/11 attacks and a teacher brought up the unlikely hood of a bunch of scared people overcoming trained terrorists and ending up in a rural forest. she said that since they believe it was headed for the whitehouse then the gov't probably shot it down.

it seemed very likely but i need halp to decide whether the theory is probable or possible and if it is how to strengthen it.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I would find it to be a plausable theory if anything. Logic determines it might make sense, but without supporting evidience it would be difficult to prove anything. I was not there though, so I wouldn't know. But I have a hard time believing that a couple of people with knives boarded a plane, an not one passenger was able to subdue them. People may have been scared, but I would think that once one person pounced then everyone would commence to beating the crap out of said "terrorist"...but this is nothing more than some post by a guy with a redneck mindset



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
This is the only theory i believe out of this whole mess, i remember saying that from the word go, that plane was shot down, it would be normal protocol if the whitehouse was under threat. Its a shame those people lost their lives.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KOGDOG
 


So the stupid video says no fire, no debris, no luggage...

Flight 93 hit the ground at 580mph, nose down rolled on it back. At that
speed the plane and anything onboard would be smashed into fragments
with some larger pieces. Not much left to see. Also fuel load would be
atomized on impact and quickly burn off.

What did you expect to see - plane sitting on ground with luggage neatly
stacked nearby.

pictures of debris

Jet engine recovered from crater



Bin full of recovered debris - there were 10 bins like this recovered from
scene. This is what happened to plane



piece of fuselage



more debris

[img][/img]


Have to do better than this



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


What does anything you posted have to do with a shoot down of flight 93? If it was shot down, it would still crash.

Edit to add on topic: As far as the OP goes, my going theory is that it was jammed electronically by the C-130(H) that just happened to be flying to Minnesota via Pennsylvania from Washington, DC. Look on a map, it's not really the best flight path. Especially when you are the only plane in the sky (due to everyone else being grounded).

Did I mention that this is the same C-130 that "witnessed" flight 77 hit the pentagon? Over 100 miles away in less than 30 minutes apart.

I wonder what the coincidences of that are? Especially taking into account that the C-130 was supossedly not looking for flight 93, but going on it's merry way back to Minn.



[edit on 10/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I have the unique position of knowing about the C-130 that Griff mentioned. Yes, it was a C-130 from Minneapolis, but it was strictly a cargo version. I was stationed at the base that if flew (actually still flies) from. There is NO jamming equipment installed on that aircraft, none. The crew that day, were unfortunate enough to be caught up in the events that day and its consequences thereafter.

What consequences? Moronic conspiracy theorists that call them late at night, accost them at the Mall of America, drop off hate mail at their houses etc.....

Personally, I think there should be a special law passed that would allow them to shoot the morons that keep trying to make their lives hell.

As for the "strange" route being taken, there was one other stop that they were originally supposed to make on their way back to Minneapolis....after Flight 93 hit the ground, it was cancelled.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Edit to add on topic: As far as the OP goes, my going theory is that it was jammed electronically by the C-130(H) that just happened to be flying to Minnesota via Pennsylvania from Washington, DC.


Who's C130 would that be? Which squadron/wing?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by KOGDOG
 


So the stupid video says no fire, no debris, no luggage...

Flight 93 hit the ground at 580mph, nose down rolled on it back. At that
speed the plane and anything onboard would be smashed into fragments
with some larger pieces. Not much left to see. Also fuel load would be
atomized on impact and quickly burn off.

What did you expect to see - plane sitting on ground with luggage neatly
stacked nearby.

pictures of debris

Jet engine recovered from crater



Bin full of recovered debris - there were 10 bins like this recovered from
scene. This is what happened to plane



piece of fuselage



more debris

[img][/img]


Have to do better than this




I think people should take note of something, in the case of Flight 93, the debunkers talk about the Plane nose diving at 500 mph.

When the debunkers are challenged as to why would the Pentagon be struck the way it was rather then straight down, we are told by the debunkers that it would be too difficult to do that?


Also notice the pictures that were posted, is not reasonable to expect more? It is not reasonable for the *Authorities* to have matched the so called Plane Parts back to the Plane?

Anyone can see clearly, that something is wrong with just that Crater and so little of the Plane.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The flt 93 Shoot down theory is just another 'contridiction' within the shotgunning of claims made by the truth movement.

It directly contridicts the "NORAD Stood down" conspiracy theory... because if you have planes being shot out of the sky, the figher jets couldn't be standing down, now could they.

It is a perfect illustration of how silly these "theories' are if you put an ounce of common sense to them. Just throw a bunch of crap on the wall and see what sticks--



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
CUT...
It directly contridicts the "NORDAD Stood down" conspiracy theory... because if you have planes being shot out of the sky, the figher jets couldn't be standing down, now could they.

Colonel David Hackworth reported that there was an Air Force Officer on duty the day of 911 that did not obey the Cheney order to "stand down". It was that AF Officer who saved the day and kept the US from being put under "martial law" since Flight 93 was headed for Capital Hill. Now of course I can't find that story on the net. If anyone can I would really appreciate a URL to it. Hackworth made his claims according to inside info that he was privy to due to his long military career and many contacts within the Pentagon. But... who knows? That's life... plausible deniability. I have seen many plane crashes and not one has "liquefied". Hackworth's story might explain the "shoot down/stand down" enigma. Strange days...



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Griff

Edit to add on topic: As far as the OP goes, my going theory is that it was jammed electronically by the C-130(H) that just happened to be flying to Minnesota via Pennsylvania from Washington, DC.


Who's C130 would that be? Which squadron/wing?


www.youtube.com...

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien in his own words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I separated this because I didn't want people to think the following was Mr. O'Brien's words.


One of the most curious facts of 9/11 is how the same C-130 Air National Guard plane, Golfer 6, was able to visually identify 2 of the 4 planes within seconds of the crashes, even though the crash sites were over 100 miles apart.


In order for the C-130 to identify the Flight 93 just minutes after the crash it had to have a pre-determined flight plan that took it almost directly over Shanksville. What are the odds of that?


My question is why would the C-130 be traveling on this flight path to begin with? Below is a link to a map I made in Google maps showing the flight path of the C-130 from Washington, D.C. towards Shanksville. However, the C-130's ultimate destination was Minneapolis. The red line shows the direct path the C-130 would have taken to get to Minneapolis. The blue line shows the actual direction the C-130 was traveling on 9/11.


www.flight93truth.com...

I think that pretty much describes what I'm saying. And answers your questions. BTW, that's not my page.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I think that pretty much describes what I'm saying. And answers your questions. BTW, that's not my page.


Actually, it doesn't answer my question. It doesn't say what unit suppposedly owns this 130. Just that it flew from Andrews.

(unless it's on the youtube video, which I can't access here).



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Does it matter which unit owns the C-130? It's on public record and is backed up by the government. This isn't made up by "truthers". The government is the one who claims that the same C-130 "witnessed" both crash sites. Not us kooky Cters.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
There is ZERO evidence that UA93 was shot down.

In fact, ALL of the evidence shows it wasn't. The two "black boxes" (FDR and CVR) showed that it wasn't. Also, the impact into the ground indicated an intact aircraft impact.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by thedman
 


What does anything you posted have to do with a shoot down of flight 93? If it was shot down, it would still crash.

Edit to add on topic: As far as the OP goes, my going theory is that it was jammed electronically by the C-130(H) that just happened to be flying to Minnesota via Pennsylvania from Washington, DC. Look on a map, it's not really the best flight path. Especially when you are the only plane in the sky (due to everyone else being grounded).

Did I mention that this is the same C-130 that "witnessed" flight 77 hit the pentagon? Over 100 miles away in less than 30 minutes apart.

I wonder what the coincidences of that are? Especially taking into account that the C-130 was supossedly not looking for flight 93, but going on it's merry way back to Minn.



[edit on 10/8/2008 by Griff]


there was no c130 in shanksville.

not one single person witnessed such a thing.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
wally miller states the fbi concluded the plane impacted right wing first and not nose first. an inverted nose first crash is not consistent with the blast trajectory.......




viola saylor saw a bigger white plane flying away from the scene shortly after the crash.....



along with the little white plane witnessed by susan mcelwain....




the bigger white plane is a fighter plane as described by these witnesses :




i hope the bush loyalist duh-bunkers can address the following witnesses without insulting them. we'll see......


[edit on 9-10-2008 by Domenick DiMaggio]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   


the bigger white plane is a fighter plane as described by these witnesses :


The white plane was a Falcon business jet owned by VF corporation
(which makes Wrangler jeans and North Face). Plane was on trip to
Johnstown PA, 20 miles north of Shanksvile. Plane was descending
into Johnstown when FAA contacted pilot to locate and confirm scene




There was such a jet in the vicinity - a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation, an apparel company that makes Wrangler, The North Face, and other brands. The eight-passenger VF plane (mostly white with gold markings) was flying from the company's headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina, to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where the company had a manufacturing facility at the time. The Johnstown-Cambria airport is 20 miles north of Shanksville

According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 4,000 feet" - not 34,000 feet. "They were in a decent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1,500 feet of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it." Newell says the plane circled the crash site twice and then flew directly over it in order to mark the exact latitude and longitude on the plane's navigation system.





"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."


We have description of the plane - WHITE with Gold markings

So why do you continue to lie? We have the reports from the FAA
controllers and the pilot of the plane.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



the bigger white plane is a fighter plane as described by these witnesses :


The white plane was a Falcon business jet owned by VF corporation
(which makes Wrangler jeans and North Face). Plane was on trip to
Johnstown PA, 20 miles north of Shanksvile. Plane was descending
into Johnstown when FAA contacted pilot to locate and confirm scene




There was such a jet in the vicinity - a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation, an apparel company that makes Wrangler, The North Face, and other brands. The eight-passenger VF plane (mostly white with gold markings) was flying from the company's headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina, to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where the company had a manufacturing facility at the time. The Johnstown-Cambria airport is 20 miles north of Shanksville

According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 4,000 feet" - not 34,000 feet. "They were in a decent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1,500 feet of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it." Newell says the plane circled the crash site twice and then flew directly over it in order to mark the exact latitude and longitude on the plane's navigation system.





"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."


We have description of the plane - WHITE with Gold markings

So why do you continue to lie? We have the reports from the FAA
controllers and the pilot of the plane.




i'm not lying.....

obviously you choose to call susan mcelwain, viola saylor, and these teenagers liars because they where there to witness what you did not and they don't regurgitate your precious bushie lie.

there was no corporate plane in shanksville.

i challenge you to name 1 witness that will say they saw a white corporate jet on 9/11 in shanksville and i will interview them immediately.

mrs. mcelwan, mrs. saylor, and these students seem to disagree with you.

i personally am not afriad to call yates gladwell a traitor to this country and a liar.

are you brave enough to say the same about mrs. mcelwain, mrs. saylor, and these witnesses behind your anonymous moniker?

yates said he went down to 1,500 feet.

viola saylor, bob blair, & doug miller all say the large white [non corporate plane] was tree level.

again they witnessed it, not you.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Domenick DiMaggio]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


YOU are OFF TOPIC. There is NO EVIDENCE of an intercept and there is no evidence of a SHOOT DOWN, NONE WHATSOEVER.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join