Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by underduck

 

Idk what they did with them, but if that is what actually happen, why is that so hard to believe? Some 3,000+ people were killed in the towers but a single plane full is unreasonable?

I understand what you are saying here but having some soilders kill innocent Americans is a lot different than "allowing" some lunatic highjackers to take planes and fly innocent Americans into a building.

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by Alfie1

b) the hi-jackers dialed in the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) frequency for the VOR aid at Reagan National Airport. They wanted navigational assistance to get to Washington.

c) OBL's driver Salim Hamdan, in custody at Guantanamo Bay, is on record as saying he knew the target of UA 93 was "the Dome". Generally understood to mean the Capitol.

Could you dig out sources for us on these two?

This is a brief article about Salim Hamdan and UA 93's target :-

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD

The dial up for the VOR aid at Reagan National Airport was covered in the 9/11 Commission report.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by boncho

 

Is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument in reverse?

I guess I can't disagree with you since we really can't prove anything to be 100% accurate but the no plane theory is one that best fits into my overall understanding of the events that took place that day.

No, actually it's more like educated reasoning. Media outlets make money of viewership, if they hear a volcano is erupting and they don't have footage they use old footage of Mt. St. Helens. Some creative people there might forget to put the disclaimer up. Some might cut and splice footage.

It's just one of those things, when you find faked footage, it can't be used as evidence of anything other than a news outlet faking footage. Unless you have information on who did it and why. And that's a lot of info....

The Chinese do it... www.youtube.com...

CNN called them on it.

But they sure wouldn't do the same right?

reply to post by underduck


Idk man. Its not that much of a stretch for me to imagine that they can find people who they can manipulate into killing innocent people. There has been plenty of evidence to show that, under the right circumstances, people will often do things that they find unethical.

reply to post by boncho


Well their videos all seem to sync up with one another, as far as where the planes hit the towers, and said footage was "live", so I think that they must have been in on it or at the bare minimum had prior knowledge of the event, but again, there's no way to prove anything to be 100% accurate.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I would say it isnt out of the realm of possibilities but the passengers overpowering the hijackers and the Air Force being forced to shoot it down makes more sense to me.

Originally posted by Alfie1

This is a brief article about Salim Hamdan and UA 93's target :-

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD

The dial up for the VOR aid at Reagan National Airport was covered in the 9/11 Commission report.

Interesting. I find it odd that they also mention that he was a low level driver who worked for a wage and not to wage war. Makes me wonder exactly what he knew for sure.

As for the Commission report ... I dont know about that. That is by far not a flawless piece of work.

reply to post by underduck


It's possible. I just don't like the giant hole in the ground with that explanation.

I think its more easily explained with explosives under or within a plane. I think explosives would best explain how there was a giant hole and how there was wreckage found so far away.

If a fighter jet shot them down then he had to have fired at least twice, one to hit the plane, and one to hit the ground causing the crater?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I always thought the giant hole in the ground was because it came in at a close to 90 degree angle. Most commercial plane crashes are due to mechanical failures and the pilots are trying to keep things as level as possible. In this case a missle that takes out a wing could easily send a commercial plane into the ground at 90 degrees.

reply to post by underduck


But if that were the case, the crater would have had the majority of the plane in it? I might be mistaken but I'm under the impression that the hole had hardly any wreckage in it.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I wonder if the fuel burnt it up. If all the wreckage fell into one hole it would all be centralized. Plus the impact would have certainly set off the fuel tanks (which were still very full). In normal malfunction crashes most of the time, it seems, that the fuel doesnt explode for whatever reason. This sort of crash was different.

reply to post by underduck


I don't think jet fuel would get hot enough to evaporate the wreckage in the crater. If it was actually shot down and no explosives were used then I think the most plausible explanation is that the plane exploded, after being grounded by the fighter jet. I just don't think that jet fuel alone would cause an explosion big enough to launch the wreckage out of and away from the crater. The video I saw of the reported crash site doesn't show any large debris in range of the massive crater.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


It is strange ... dont get me wrong. We just have way too many questions than answers at this point. The whole leaving messages for his mom using his full name is weird. I forget the name ... Mark Beachum or something like that.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

being overtaken by silly arguments

Silly arguments is right - looks like you went out to every idiotic truther website and scraped up every piece of
excrement and built yourself a giant manure pile....

If they were heading to New York - explain why heading is SOUTHEAST direction toward Washington DC

Here is map of flight path



Also explain why dialing in VOR radio beacon at Reagan National in Washington DC

As for leaving Newark airport late - I take it have never flown out of Newark, which is notorious for delays

Another fact is that WTC 7 was ringed by numerous skyscrapers 40-50 stories high

WTC 7 was 47 stories - not a lot of room to aim for, particularly if follow truther meme "that the hijackers cant fly"

Of course we have the "no planers" adding their brand of insanity to the mix

reply to post by thedman


/thread.

The plane was definitely headed towards DC, as shown by the map. That should settle it, right there.

Originally posted by thedman


Silly arguments is right - looks like you went out to every idiotic truther website and scraped up every piece of
excrement and built yourself a giant manure pile....

If they were heading to New York - explain why heading is SOUTHEAST direction toward Washington DC

Here is map of flight path

Agreed... end this thread now. Another truther tread with pure speculation and zero evidence.

i was watching t.v in the uk at 5.10 am our time midnight in new york .on the morning of the 12th of sept next thing some young guy in fatigues with no badges of rank gets put on the speakers desk to say these words YES WE DID SHOOT DOWN PLANES .then moves away from the speakers desk . it dawned on me then that it had been a con job as bbc tv in the uk had aired these stories from the AM the previous day .just to make sure of this fact ive asked that question of thousands of people .it would be an interesting thread that one if somebody wants to start it WHAT TIME DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 9-11 in the rest of the world ps see the same shills back at 9-11 sites as ever

reply to post by boncho




This is how their cover was blown.

I'm not even sure if they were shot down. Maybe the "bomb on board" blew prematurely, huh?

ETA: on second thought, it was on the airwaves that 93 was hijacked with a bomb on board. If a fighter pilot caught word and figured it was going to blow anyways, it would have been somewhat personally "justifiable" to shoot it down.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
The plane was definitely headed towards DC, as shown by the map. That should settle it, right there.

You call that definitive? Wow. Such a small portion of the overall flight was headed southeast. I have to disagree with you.