The Flight 93 Paradox: How do you twist it to fit YOUR version?

Reading through seemingly countless threads about the events of the most fateful day in modern-American history, one glimmering artifact that gives me hope that indeed "truthers" may some day see the errors of their collective ways, is their decidedly vast disagreement on the fate of Flight 93. It seems to be a wormhole in the already flimsy argument.

Was 93 shot down? I would say probably the majority of conspiracy theorists agree with this claim. If you answer yes to that question, then answer me this in return; why? Why did they shoot down flight 93, and then cover it up? What sense does it make with the official story? Where does it fit in? Was flight 93 an attempt by the government to further deepen the conspiracy-chasm?

I am intrigued to know your answers.

-partchimp

The below is my opinion only.

Flight 93 was supposed to go down in the plot that was orchestrated. To create "heroes" and increase the patriotic fever that would ensue in its aftermath. It also gives more of a realistic sense of fallibility to the fake terrorist plot instead of having all the planes hit their mark.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure this out, does it?

If FL93 was shot down, it would be a horrible end to an already horrible day, especially in terms of PR for the U.S. government. Not only were they caught sleeping and had the WTCs and Pentagon attacked, they were forced to take down their own passenger jet, killing 40 innocent people.

On the other hand, if they could spin the story as "passengers are heroes" they would a) be off the hook for killing their own citizens, and b) launch a pr campaign for the "war on terror" which was started when the passengers of FL 93 fought back and saved the Capitol or White House from certain destruction.

Also, the C-130 at Shanksville *could* have been an EC-130 with electronic jamming equipment that might have caused FL93 to crash without it being shot down.

I concur with Frith. We needed a "see, we got dem der terrists". Also, it gave us such warm feelings knowing that the heroes of flight 93 were willing to kill themselves to save others...i.e. crash the plane (intentionally or not).

All well and fine nick, but where does the orchestrated termination of the flight and supposed pending cover up fit into the conspiracy theorists' argument?

Originally posted by PartChimp
supposed pending cover up fit into the conspiracy theorists' argument?

Actually, it's not just the CT arguement. Many (if not all) the serious OCTers (official conspiracy theorists) around here believe 93 was shot down I believe.

The answer to the 'why?' might simply be that Flight 93 was 40 minutes late departing. Because of that, maybe it had to be brought down. Maybe it couldn't have been allowed to continue to its intended destination since the failure to intercept it could never be explained given the amount of extra time NORAD would have had.

The choices then might have been:

1. a military shoot-down, perhaps prompting more questions about why the others were not intercepted; or

2. an heroic passenger intervention

Believe me Griff, my opinions are not being interjected into this thread because I want to learn a bit more about the theories of the "other side". Although it's known that I believe the official story, I have my own educated ideas about exactly what happened before, on, and after 9/11. I am simply garnering knowledge on some of the more mundane and out there theories about 93's fate.

Originally posted by PartChimp
All well and fine nick, but where does the orchestrated termination of the flight and supposed pending cover up fit into the conspiracy theorists' argument?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But I'm guessing you mean how does the FL93 shoot down fit with a CT that the government was complicit in WTCs and Pentagon?

Here's my theory on that...

Since the WTCs were both already hit by 9:02 am, and since the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 am, there would have been no feasible explanation for how the national military defense systems could have possibly allowed a 2nd plane into Washington D.C. airspace to crash into the Capitol or White House. It's even hard to believe that FL93 continued to fly for 25 minutes unimpeded *after* the Pentagon attack.

Therefore, FL93 was going to be taken down one way or another.

To turn the question around a bit, how could you explain the theory that FL93 was NOT taken down by military aircraft?

Do you really believe that the U.S. air defense was so incompetent that 25 minutes after the Pentagon was hit that NO fighters were tracking in on FL93, which was known to be heading directly towards Washington D.C.?

Nick-

If you read carefully through my statements and questions, nowhere do I state my beliefs, for or against the termination of 93. I simply am trying to unearth the cospiracy theorists' position on the matter.

Personally, being a believer in the official story, I have come to the conclusion that the flight was more than likely terminated; the "Let's Roll" heroics of the day concocted to pull something good out of the worst day in American history. I would like to make it perfectly clear however, that because I can see the validity of a cover-up involving 93, that I in no way shape or form believe that reptoid controlled holographic planes were used to implement the top to bottom demolition of the WTC's.

Originally posted by PartChimp

Personally, being a believer in the official story, I have come to the conclusion that the flight was more than likely terminated; the "Let's Roll" heroics of the day concocted to pull something good out of the worst day in American history.

Then by definition you're not a believer of the official story if you believe that FL93 was "terminated."

The conclusion you've reached implies that there was a government cover-up of monumental proportions. Do you even realize the implications of your "conclusion?"

First and foremost, the entire CVR transcript would have been created to fool the public. Next, the FBI would have to lie about thoroughly investigating the possibility of a shoot down and concluding there was no shoot down.

If you're conclusion is correct, then that means there was a government conspiracy to cover-up the murders of 40 civilians -murders which could have been ordered by Bush or Cheney.

And if the government was willing to lie about the shoot down, then how do you know they didn't concoct the entire story about the terrorists taking over the plane? Maybe FL 93 was mistakenly shot down.

In other words, if you think the government is capable of lying about the shootdown and covering it up, how do you decide which parts of the government story to believe?

Nick-

Simply because I can see the necessity in the cover-up. This is wildly un-popular, I know, but there is a gigantic difference in covering up the shoot-down of a plane which was bound to strike a major government facility in a highly populated urban area and the cover-up of the demolition of three buildings and a planned attack on the core of American defense in Washington. The first makes sense to me. The second does not. In some small way, it is probably akin to the same gut-instinct that makes ct'ers so convinced that our government are a horde of mischevious, murderous bastards that would gobble up thousands of their own innocent civillians for seemingly little or no gain.

Speaking of murder, I like your classy choice of words. If I believe there is indeed a cover-up within the official story, "murder" isn't exactly what i would refer to the destruction of flight 93 as. Sacrificing the few for the many is more like it, wouldn't you say?

The simpliest answer might be the right one.
There was no flight 93 to start with, they simply staged it. The sotry was already written because America needed heroes to increase the patriotism and the support to the flag.

Originally posted by PartChimp
This is wildly un-popular, I know, but there is a gigantic difference in covering up the shoot-down of a plane which was bound to strike a major government facility in a highly populated urban area and the cover-up of the demolition of three buildings and a planned attack on the core of American defense in Washington.

Given the events of that day, had everything been legitimate I see no reason for the USA to have denied it shot down that plane to prevent further deaths. I also see no reason why they would have bothered to also manufacture telephone conversations to back up such a denial. Such subversiveness in the defense of the USA has all the qualifications of criminality to me. Though I'm sure to you it does not.

Originally posted by piacenza
The simpliest answer might be the right one.
There was no flight 93 to start with, they simply staged it. The sotry was already written because America needed heroes to increase the patriotism and the support to the flag.

Piacenza-

A couple of questions:
1. What is the wreckage recovered in Shanksville?
2. Where are the missing passengers?

Originally posted by Frith
Given the events of that day, had everything been legitimate I see no reason for the USA to have denied it shot down that plane to prevent further deaths. I also see no reason why they would have bothered to also manufacture telephone conversations to back up such a denial. Such subversiveness in the defense of the USA has all the qualifications of criminality to me. Though I'm sure to you it does not.

Who said the phone calls had to have been "manufactured"? Could there have simply been details left out? Maybe the attempt by the passengers to take back the plane was thwarted by the terrorists, the rebellious passengers murdered, and the unresponsive plane had to be taken down by use of force from the government.

It is a sad fact of life that a government lies to it's people. What matters in the end is what it lies about, I suppose.

I'm still flabbergasted that the story of Flight 93 was turned into the first 9/11-related major motion picture in the face of so many people who believe it was shot down. I mean, how did it come to this? We have official story believers backing the "shot down UA93" theory, we have Rumsfeld pretty much SAYING it was shot down, we have a pilot who says he was the one who shot it down, we have patch of land with not much more then scattered papers and a ~10ft wide hole in the dirt being called the crash area, not to mention a cornucopia of coincidences and inconsistencies about what happened to the plane in the official story.. someone explain to me how after 5 years we still don't have enough conflicting evidence to prove this plane was shot down?

Originally posted by PartChimp
Simply because I can see the necessity in the cover-up.

Why would there be a "necessity" for a cover-up? This may be one of the more disturbing thoughts I've seen posted here in a long time.

Do you think it would be a necessity to cover-up a shoot down to protect Bush's political career? Or would it be a necessity to protect the American public from having their psyche damaged?

Again, why would there be a "necessity" to cover-up the interception of FL 93, other than for political reasons?

This is wildly un-popular, I know, but there is a gigantic difference in covering up the shoot-down of a plane which was bound to strike a major government facility in a highly populated urban area and the cover-up of the demolition of three buildings and a planned attack on the core of American defense in Washington. The first makes sense to me. The second does not.

Would the 2nd make sense if the government had foreknowledge but failed to stop the attacks?

Speaking of murder, I like your classy choice of words.

If I believe there is indeed a cover-up within the official story, "murder" isn't exactly what i would refer to the destruction of flight 93 as. Sacrificing the few for the many is more like it, wouldn't you say?

This is a very slippery slope that you apparently have no problem entertaining. If you can believe the government can make the desicion to "sacrifice" a few for the good of the many, then it's not a far reach in logic to believe that the same government could also have allowed the sacrifice of a "few" at the WTCs and Pentagon for the good of the many.

If you believe this, how could you argue against anybody who might believe that the government let 9/11 happen? Maybe the people who let 9/11 happen were as surprised as anybody to see both WTCs collapse, and didn't anticipate the death toll to be so high. Then maybe they decided to level WTC7 to bury all the CIA and FBI records that were evidence of their foreknowledge of the 9/11 plan.

Maybe they even sent somebody on a covert mission into the National Archives to steal and destroy documents that would have been a "smoking gun" to the government's foreknowledge of 9/11. I know that sounds far-fetched and probably could never hav.... WAIT...

What's that? Sandy Berger DID steal and destroy documents from the National Archives, and then after he got away with it, he hired 9/11 Commission co-Chair Lee Hamilton as a consultant at his multi-million dollar consulting firm!?

Nah... that couldn't really have happened without the news media being all over the story, right?

Broken-

Because it's a story that makes people feel like we didn't lose complete control that day. Ordinary citizens rose up and sacrificed themselves against a maniacal terroist threat and in doing so negated the destruction of many more civilians. It's a very inspiring story. Don't you remember the story of a man riding (i believe) WTC 2 all the way down to the ground via the roof-top and surviving, which was later found out to be fiction? People like to find good in the bad, even if it is delusional.

Nick-

What good would have been gathered from government complicity in 9/11? How does it play on the emotions or the security needs of the average American citizen? The official flight 93 story is a heroic, inspiring story. Something that the public needed to hear at the time. Of course if the government covered it up, it is deadly wrong, but a realist should be able to see the advantage of such a fabrication for the good of the American people and their collective psyche, however miniscule it may be.

What do the American people garner from 9/11? Severe paranoia? Higher gas-prices? Dead relatives who met their fates in iraq and afghanistan or other clandestine locales in the world? You are comparing apples to oranges, it seems.