HOT! FOX news report: 93 shot down by F-16 from DC National Air Guard

The shootdown story has no evidence in this video. However, it is possible due to the two debris fields: the main one at Shanksville with no discernible aircraft wreckage and the debris that "fell from the sky" at Indian Lake.

First, NO Air National Guard or USAF fighter jet even saw one of the four planes that day. The officer said that a F-16 went up to deter a plane (i.e., Flight 93) is true -- but, it never saw it.

Only two military aircraft that saw the planes was: 1) The very suspicious ANG C-130 that saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and then later saw, or was shortly on the scene (stories vary by the crew) of the Flight 93 crash. I investigated the C-130 in depth. The story is full of holes and contradictions.

and 2) A E4-B Boeing 747 "Doomsday" plane near the Pentagon which was within 20 - 25 miles of Flight 77's final run into the Pentagon. It may or may not have "seen" it, but it looped 180 degrees around Flight 77's flight path.

reply to post by astrogolf


There was a decision made on Payne Stewarts plane not to shoot it down because it was determined not to be a threat to a population center where it was estimated to run out of fuel.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
LET'S ROLL!!

With these incessant 911 "We are right, it was the US!" threads of late, I reapply the phrase ''Lets Troll''.

And for the record, I am undecided as to the events on 911. I do however find that an inconclusive investigation into it is dubious, but that it somehow directly points to the US government as being the perpetrators, as absolutely asinine as the majority of hologram theories.

Dumb arabs cant fly planes = US GOVT DID IT.
Dumb investigators looking into the event cant work crap out with a pencil = US GOVT DID IT.
I blew up a steel bar and it didn't melt = US GOVT DID IT.

Saddens me that people are that shallow as to allow a brainwashing tactic by a few, to work them over.

It also is true however, that there is indeed a dark element in the US govt that do things of a insidious nature to benefit their own agenda. Undeniable.

But for christs sake, if they can take down a pivotal structure in the middle of new york and have SO MUCH accusation pointed at them - one denies the other.

Why not just say "the arabs had apparently been to the towers under the guise of engineers, and applied the thermite."

Or "somehow they managed to get in and set off explosives to coincide with the plane strikes... We are at a loss.."

Deniability.

No - these masterminds sit back and go "Oh who cares... it will only last a few weeks." and years later ? Nada.

More likely the masterminds were the actual accused, and the events were unforgivable oversights to structural inadequacies.

Nah, gotsta have a tin foil hat, or else you is just one of dere dem sheeples...

balony.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I agree, doesn't believing that the plane was shot down invalidate all the other conspiracy theories of 911. If it was an 'inside job' and the gov't was responsible, why would they shoot down their own remote controlled plane or whatever it might be?

No because it's possible that if the passengers were taking back control of the aircraft they had to shoot it down to prevent the truth from getting out...

Jaden

Originally posted by micpsi


That would have been funny if the question had not been so absurd. Maybe, just maybe, they realised that Payne Stewart was not likely to be a terrorist? Gosh! You never thought of that?

You can't prove that Payne Stewart wasn't a terrorist. He may well have been involved in the planning of 9/11.

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I agree, doesn't believing that the plane was shot down invalidate all the other conspiracy theories of 911. If it was an 'inside job' and the gov't was responsible, why would they shoot down their own remote controlled plane or whatever it might be?

No because it's possible that if the passengers were taking back control of the aircraft they had to shoot it down to prevent the truth from getting out...

Jaden

I think what he may be refering to is another branch of the conspiracy tree wherein it is argued that NO plane crashed in Shanksville and even another branch that argues there was no Flight 93. Well, you can't have a shootdown without a plane in the first place.

reply to post by badw0lf


Couldn't agree more.

I can't stand this idea that anything, absolutely anything, that seems to contradict some minuscule aspect of something that Truthers have decided to call the "OS" - itself a colossal straw man - is a HUGE win for the Truth Movement. Even if it directly contradicts some other trope of trutherism.

Or that someone who basically thinks that the traditional version of events is pretty much right, give or take a few bits and pieces and allowing for government gloss of their role, is some sort of warmongering big oil loyalist.

One can see this in micpsi's posts above. The poster doesn't care at all about the subject, it seems, but just thirsts after any piece of information, anything at all, that will let him post things to the effect of - "Ha ha yr OS = nonsense how u feel now truster." It stinks.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


sorry for doing this, since this thread is a "HOT" topic, and so many recent posts so quickly, i didn't want my post at the bottom of the previous page to get overlooked. i think i shared at the very least a piece to a puzzle.

thanks,
et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


i have a question to ask how would one find out from the ordnance depot that a ordnance was indeed used. What i am getting at, if flight 93 was shot down, would there not be records of spent/ replaced ordnance? if so were would they be?

They only said that a fighter was sent up to discourage the suspected aircraft and hinted at this fighter's success, not that the fighter shot down the aircraft. The fighter could have been sent up but before it got on location, the aircraft went down. When the report came back that the aircraft was no longer a threat, FOX put two and two together to report that the fighter scrambled, was successful at deterring the suspected terrorist aircraft.

I'm not saying that this is what happened and in fact, I do believe that the aircraft was shot down, rather I'm only pointing out how it could be interpreted. Furthermore, official conspiracy theorists can argue that they weren't taolking about Flight 93 at all.

With that being said, if they lied about this incident, then it is more than fair to suggest that they are lying about other things too. This is also true for the MSM. If the MSM is lying about this and keeping it from the public, wouldn't it be fair to suggest that they are keeping other important evidence from the people and helping government to cover up the events of 9/11.


On another note, excellent find and nicely put together video. S&F!


--airspoon


[edit on 20-8-2010 by airspoon]

Saddens me that people are that shallow as to allow a brainwashing tactic by a few, to work them over.

Saddens me that the government has lied so many times and screwed up so many times that people consider this conditioning "brainwashing".

Yes, we are "brainwashed" into thinking the government is lying.

Its not even a small stretch. You have a terrible unsolved crime and a lying government and people are "brainwashed" to think they were in on it or lying about it.

lol.

If this plane was 'deterred', as is claimed, what happened to it then? To deter implies something other than shoot down, so it should have landed somewhere.
How do you deter a plane which by implication should have been flown by suicide bombers?
When was this incident supposed to have happened, since all civil flights were grounded at 9.40 a.m., just after the Pentagon explosion?

Originally posted by spikey
Frankly, if this passenger aircraft was indeed shot down by a US military jet, under the circumstances on the day, it would be understandable, tragic, but understandable and necessary.(..)


part of quote removed to save "web realestate"

(..)IF this was so, we can only speculate (again) that either the systems developed a fault(s), or the crew on the AWACS (if that's what it was) rebelled against their orders. If either of these scenarios transpired, it would then become crucial that the aircraft be shot down, for the reasons already given.




Perhaps ptb lost control of the aircraft, and couldn't take the chance it would remain relatively intact after crash landing, as if it did, obviously the gig would be up for them.

Investigators pouring over a more or less intact aircraft, rigged for remote control via AWACS or similar, would mean no terrorists and complicity by the authorities and prove the false flag operation that sent our countries into Afghanistan.

Blow the thing up mid flight, and the evidence is dispersed and covered up.

This is the most comprehensive account of possible going-ons. I had exactly the same instincts ,being well aqainted with the possibilities of remote-controlling large vehicles.

It sounds completely plausible. The lack of blood, bodyparts wreckage etc. of 93 does point to a drone-like rigged plane.

The whole 9/11 rundown still whispers "Reichstag Fire, Reichstag Fire" in my sub-concious. Too convenient, too convenient, all of it.




[edit on 8/20/2010 by diakrite]

This is GOLD!

I have never seen the first 8 minutes of footage within this video.

This prooves the flight data was faked. It proves many things...like
the passengers never wrestled the "terrorists"; that 9/11 was an inside job...
you know things like that.

Originally posted by turbofan
This is GOLD!

I have never seen the first 8 minutes of footage within this video.

This prooves the flight data was faked. It proves many things...like
the passengers never wrestled the "terrorists"; that 9/11 was an inside job...
you know things like that.

The only thing it proves is that FOX is full of inept and idiotic reporters. It PROVES nothing of what you claim and no one except the high ranking officials in our government will EVER know the whole truth. I choose to believe the official story. I've read through the posts, watched the videos, and looked at the pictures, and nothing has ever shown anything conclusive that has changed my mind on the events of that terrible day.

Originally posted by turbofan
This is GOLD!

I have never seen the first 8 minutes of footage within this video.

This prooves the flight data was faked. It proves many things...like
the passengers never wrestled the "terrorists"; that 9/11 was an inside job...
you know things like that.

I have to ask.

How does this prove that the passengers never wrestled with the terrorists?

Originally posted by mikelee
Flight 93 was shot down. There were three debris fields. The one near Shanksville was the one they deemed as a sole site. Initial news media reports stated specifically that the crash site was deep in the Pennsylvania woods and it would take hours to reach.....

Then they "found" Shanksville. The rest is untrue history!

[edit on 8/20/2010 by mikelee]

Total BS, the plane was NEVER shot down as it NEVER was in that area. Please look at the location, the total lack of ANY wreckage and so on. Three sites? Yea sure, I got 2 cents, I'll buy that, NOT!!

Amazing what people will believe. Prove it to me.
Show me the actual evidence of the plane? NTSB gathers the pieces and puts them back together, why not in this instance?

Why is there no investigation or attempt to recover anything, including bodies, was the plane blown to bits and therefore absolutely NO REMAINS were ever found, luggage, parts or pieces. (And don't give me photos of small pieces with no other defining backround, they could be taken anywhere and about anything). Just look at all the other plane crashes or shot down planes, parts everywhere, bodies recovered, luggage and clothing recovered. PLEASE......

Anyone with half a brain could see the BS in that.

reply to post by Snarf


Don't you or any of those that gave you your stars for your post read the thread at all?

Read above mate, you'll have at least one hypothesis in answer to your question.

maybe one day we will have the pilot who did
the shooting come forward and say that he
was ordered to shoot it down. I have a feeling
that won't ever happen as he/she is probably fish
food by now.

but now I have a question
why was 93 shot down
while the Pentagon plane allowed
to continue by Cheney???

was 93 the backup plan in case
the others missed ???

when it was no longer needed,
it was destroyed.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by turbofan
This is GOLD!

I have never seen the first 8 minutes of footage within this video.

This prooves the flight data was faked. It proves many things...like
the passengers never wrestled the "terrorists"; that 9/11 was an inside job...
you know things like that.

I have to ask.

How does this prove that the passengers never wrestled with the terrorists?

Study the (fake) NTSB flight data and you'll have the answer.