reply to post by theRiverGoddess
The dude in the sunglasses is incorrect.
He, like so many, have a confirmation bias built in, and will cling to any tiny shred of info, despite all the other evidence.
After the Pentagon was hit, there is no doubt (this is not "new" news) that orders were handed down from the Executive Branch (note, Cheney did not
personally give the "order", on his own authority. This was a contingency as he says, that had already been discussed with the President.
In any event, it has been known for many years that at least one F-16 was enroute to attempt to locate United 93, and the pilot of that jet has been
interviewed. Look for a book titled "Touching History"
, by Lynn Spencer. She interviewed this F-16 pilot.
The author of that particular video, in the same manner that so many do, as I mentioned, completely misconstrues what Cheney is saying....by taking
the incorrect (based on all the evidence) leap that UAL 93 was
"shot down". It wasn't.
However....IF the hijackers had not put it down themselves, because of the uprising by the passengers, then in all probability UAL 93 would have been
intercepted in the air, prior to reaching the DC area. 15 or 20 minutes further Eastward from where it went down? Still not at its "target" (likely
the Capitol Building), but those extra minutes would have meant a fighter would have found it, as ATC did see it's primary radar return at that
The dude in the sunglasses is also overstating the "8-mile debris field", because quite frankly? He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about,
regarding the type of debris, the nature of it, and the amount of distribution.
This is the problem: People like him, who are not knowledgeable enough about the facts, and don't know all the technical details, and also what
REALLY happens, and what the crash pattern would really look like.
For instance, there would have been debris from the airplane west
of its final impact point (there was none). All that was found was
either in line with the ground track but downrange.....and, most was very lightweight material that could have been carried some distance by winds.
Even the "8-mile" figure is deceptive, since that is derived from someone looking at Google Map, and it is the roadway distance, not straight-line.
Finally....the Flight Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder. The Flight Recorder showed nothing
wrong mechanically, at all, with the
airplane until it hit the ground. Also, there was no mention, at all, by the two hijackers in the cockpit of any control difficulty, or any
exclamations that would have been obvious, had the jet been hit. There were a few final seconds of "wind noise", but that is to be expected, as the
airspeed increased significantly as it dove into the ground.
The intent is clear, when you read the CVR transcripts. "Shall we finish it off?
CNN article: Flight 93 hijacker: 'Shall
we finish it off?'
edit on Tue 6 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)