TA-HISTORY: Flight 93 Was Not Shot Down 9/11 Commission Reports

Speculation that flight 93 the aircraft that crashed in a field near Shanksville Pennsylvania on the morning of September 11, 2001 was shot down by an airforce fighter has been laid to rest by the Senate Bi-partisan Commissions report issued to the public July 22nd, 2004.



The flight 93 passengers deserve to be remembered in history as hero's and not victims that quietly succumbed to their fate. Once these passengers learned of the other aircraft hijackings and resulting crashes into buildings in New York by cell phone they took every chance they could to survive and in the process saved untold numbers of lives.

Related News Links:
news.independent.co.uk
npr.streamsage.com
www.nj.com
freeinternetpress.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Did Major Rick Gibney Shoot Down Flight 93 on 9/11?
Forum Reference Index AND Thread for Discussing anything related to 9/11, Pentagon, etc.
War on terror: Do you believe?

It's apparent the passengers were fighting the terrorists. If the passengers on the other planes had more initiative the same things could have happened. I just wonder how an aircraft that was nose-dived could have been dropping a debris trail. Perhaps the aircraft was hit by an air-to-air missile as the passengers were fighting. Remember TWA Flight 800 exploded off Long Island. Hundreds of independent witnesses describe a surface-to-air missile hitting the plane and the NTSB never came up with a reason it exploded. If the government admitted that terrorists made it to the egress zone for JFK Airport and blew up a plane with a SAM, or that a US Air Force fighter had to shoot down an aircraft, just imagine what the larger impact would be on air traffic industry.

The plane wasn't shot down.

A plane will most likely end up in a nose dive when Good Hearted Americans are fighting terrorist trying to take a plane back !

I repeat, the plane was not shot down !!!

Has anyone ever explained why debris was found so far away? Or are we just supposed to accept what they tell us because it sounds better?

Originally posted by Indy
Has anyone ever explained why debris was found so far away? Or are we just supposed to accept what they tell us because it sounds better?

Accept what they tell us because it sounds better.

Originally posted by elevatedone
The plane wasn't shot down.

A plane will most likely end up in a nose dive when Good Hearted Americans are fighting terrorist trying to take a plane back !

I repeat, the plane was not shot down !!!

Awesome evidence to support your claim, elevatedone.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Indy
Has anyone ever explained why debris was found so far away? Or are we just supposed to accept what they tell us because it sounds better?

Accept what they tell us because it sounds better.

Thanks taibunsuu... I guess I walked into that one

Originally posted by Indy
Has anyone ever explained why debris was found so far away? Or are we just supposed to accept what they tell us because it sounds better?

With the manuevers described just before the dive and the speed of 580kts cited in the article I'm wondering if the airframe was overloaded and broke up before main body of wreakage struck the field.

Remember the plane that went down in the NY area not long after 9/11 due to rudder failure caused by pilots response to wake turbulence.

I personally wouldn't doubt that this plane was shot down. This was the last plane to crash, right? After 3 planes carshed into 3 different buildings, I think it was safe to assume that this plane was going to crash into something, like the White House.

After the 9/11 panel said that there was no cockpit struggle, why would the terrorists crash into the PA countryside? Please note that this is only my opinion and I have nothing to back it up.

Its unlikely the report from the NY crash was actually truthful. They made up too many stories about that one to believe the final report. The wake turbulance thing was pure rubbish.

Agreed nyarlathotep. A jet that has fighters going after it to shoot it down ends up going down and im supposed to believe the fighters did not reach their objective when they had time to do so. Not saying that those onboard weren't trying to take the jet back over but everything points to it being shot down. It had to be done. There is no way on earth you let that jet go without shooting it down. It was an enemy aircraft during a time of war. If you don't shoot it down you are a fool.

Originally posted by Indy
Agreed nyarlathotep. A jet that has fighters going after it to shoot it down ends up going down and im supposed to believe the fighters did not reach their objective when they had time to do so. Not saying that those onboard weren't trying to take the jet back over but everything points to it being shot down. It had to be done. There is no way on earth you let that jet go without shooting it down. It was an enemy aircraft during a time of war. If you don't shoot it down you are a fool.

Uh, Indy thats fine guesswork but did you in fact read the article? or maybe the commission report? (bipartisan)

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I personally wouldn't doubt that this plane was shot down. This was the last plane to crash, right? After 3 planes carshed into 3 different buildings, I think it was safe to assume that this plane was going to crash into something, like the White House.

I agree too, it seems ovbious that they were goin to hit another big target, but of course, the US gov wouldn't want us to believe that they are shooting down cililian planes and killing innocent people, would they?

katt once it was hijacked in my opinion it was no longer a civilian aircraft. It became a WMD in the hands of the enemy in US airspace. It had to go down. And it went down in the best possible spot. (Also kind of odd don't you think?)

Originally posted by Phoenix
Uh, Indy thats fine guesswork but did you in fact read the article? or maybe the commission report? (bipartisan)

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Phoenix]

I read the article, but why would the terrorists waste that plane on crashing it into the countryside? Wouldn't it serve their purpose better by crashing the plane into a symbol of our country? Like the White House, or something else?

I originally thought that the passengers caused that plane to crash, and God only knows I wish it were true. However, I would not hold anything against my government if they shot this plane down instead of letting it crash in some populated area

Originally posted by nyarlathotep


After the 9/11 panel said that there was no cockpit struggle, why would the terrorists crash into the PA countryside? Please note that this is only my opinion and I have nothing to back it up.

It's known that the passengers were fighting the terrorists. We don't know how far they got but apparently into the cockpit. It's almost assured that they could eventually beat the terrorists. The terrorists apparently crashed the plane. But we also know that there was a debri field, indicating the plane was not intact when it hit the ground. We also know fighters were in pursuit of the plane and no doubt had orders to shoot it down. The AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile has a range up to 45 miles. A fighter aircraft could have shot it down and never been seen. So it could have been that it was shot down as the passengers were overtaking the cockpit and the terrorists were diving the plane. Something should explain the debris field. Civilian aircraft can't generally manuever with enough power to break themselves up in flight. The government would not want people to know that it fired on a plane, especially one that may have been salvageable by the passengers themselves. The fact the plane could have been shot down doesn't detract from the courage of the passengers.

I agree with you taibunsuu, I definitely don't want to take anything away from those courageous passenges, but it really looks like that plane was shot down. Again, I would not hold anyhting against my gov for doing that.

Agreed. There was an obvious attempt by the passengers to save the plane and themselves but its also pretty obvious what happened. And I also do not hold it against the governemnt. It absolutely HAD to be done. It had to be shot down when it went down. It went down out the middle of nowhere. The people onboard were going to be lost regardless. This way the people on the ground were saved.

How could it have not been shot down when an engine was so far away? Remember who the 911 commision was appointed by.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by Indy
Has anyone ever explained why debris was found so far away? Or are we just supposed to accept what they tell us because it sounds better?

With the manuevers described just before the dive and the speed of 580kts cited in the article I'm wondering if the airframe was overloaded and broke up before main body of wreakage struck the field.

Remember the plane that went down in the NY area not long after 9/11 due to rudder failure caused by pilots response to wake turbulence.

580 kts is high speed cruise for the 757/767. It would be very unlikely that a pilot could overload the airplane to the extent that engines, seats and other cabin debris would be found up to 8 miles away. Flight 93 was shot down by an F-16 but for many reasons its best that the general public not be told this.

The other airplane you were talking about is American 587 which was brought down by a bomb which triggered the vertical fin failure, not by a pilot input. For many reasons its best that the public not be told this.

The downing of TWA Flight 800 was not a terrorist attack but an accidental unarmed missle shot by the U.S. Navy. Thats why the Navy Seals were on the spot within hours to be sure that nothing incriminating the Navy be found. For many reasons its best the public not be told this.