Flight 93 : Shot down & covered up

Originally posted by mikelee


Eveything I have presented is a fact and is documented. But instead of proving me wrong people such as yourself come into these threads and make comments and statements for everything under the sun except for the thread and it's contents. I call that dis-information.

Really. Everything you presented is a "fact" and documented, you claim. Good thing lying and ignorance on an internet discussion board is not a federal offense because you would be looking at some serious jail time.

First off, your posting of the images of aircraft mishaps that in no way, shape or form are similar to the aircraft crash in Shanksville is simple ignorance. Just because *you* don't know the difference between a 747 that blows up at 31,000 and impacts the ground at a speed at or close to terminal velocity and a 757 that impacts nose-on at 563 mph doesn't mean
everyone else doesn't.

As far as the narrative you provide, it is like a half dozen pieces of a 100-piece puzzle. You quite obviously don't know what you are talking about and it shows.

As far as one of the aircraft returning with a missile "missing" - and remember you call this a "fact" and is "documented" - where did you get this "documented fact" that "flight hands and guards" at Langley reported this? I'd prefer an official account of this rather than an Internet blog post from someone named "Firebrand" or some such foolishness.

The next thing that you claim that reflects your ignorance is that the Langley fighters could have intercepted United 93 before it could have reached DC.
You know nothing, obviously, about where the fighters were first directed to fly (a heading to a way-point that was due east for 60 miles - out over the water). You know nothing, obviously, about fuel flow of a fighter aircraft in full afterburner and how quickly it will run out of fuel. You know nothing, obviously, of the air traffic control requirements that, at half-past 9 in the morning, still necessitated vectors around much of the east-coast airliner traffic flying up and down this extremely congested jet corridor.

These are just a few of the ridiculous claims you make that are not true, false, made-up, invented, mistaken or flat out lied about.

Really. I know you are getting paid for the quantity of posts vice their quality, but you should stay away from topics where you have absolutely no experience whatsoever - and don't even *think* of opining on them.

reply to post by trebor451


Lying? Apparently you do not know how to perform research to what you speak of or claim. I suggest you do that in the future rather than call anyone a liar in public.

The difference between you and I is that I post problematic issues with the OS and you can only resort to name calling and gutter tactics because you think that Mr. Rogers taught you how the world was and it got disputed and now you can't deal with it. So you post useless arguments based in personal attacks. That speaks well of you for sure.

BTW, I'm a private citizen and not a paid anything. I retired in '04 from civil service doing my part to help keep the USA free so the likes of you can come in here and attack me for expressing my opinion. Maybe you need to move to Iran.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


I would hope that any involved with the shooting down of flight 93 know, that we thank them for saving the lives that may have been lost if the plane had hit its target. Not everyone would be angry that this event had to happen. In the realm of preventative strikes and sacrifice this order was the right order to give.
Russia killed a Korean airliner that was a percieved danger and now we killed one. Ours was real.

mikelee.....why won't you answer me about the credibility of your hero donald rumsfeld.

would you for instance, go to war if he told you someone was planning on attacking you with wmd's?

tell me about this rumsfeld you cite as being proof of a shoot down.

reply to post by wholetruth


LOL.

Don Rumsfeld stated the plane was shot down. He never corrected himself. He was reading from a script that means it was written down or he just said it from memory. Afterall thats a major mistake to make and then not to correct it.

Credibility: I believe he knew the truth and when a person knows the truth they have to make an effort to lie. Perhaps you can figure out the rest.




[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee



lol.

gotcha.

donald rumsfeld can be trusted to tell the truth. especially when you like what he says.

i know a lot of people that still say he was telling the truth about saddam's wmd's......

they even made up some # about saddam sending them to syria to protect their idol......

reply to post by wholetruth


I know man. I view that as a slip to the truth instead of placing any "credit" in him in that context. I mean here we have been talking baout the plane being shot down before 2004 and he himself says it! Thats too much of a coincidence for me.

Originally posted by trebor451
As far as one of the aircraft returning with a missile "missing" - and remember you call this a "fact" and is "documented" - where did you get this "documented fact" that "flight hands and guards" at Langley reported this? I'd prefer an official account of this rather than an Internet blog post from someone named "Firebrand" or some such foolishness.

So....I suppose we won't be getting that "documented fact" thing about a missing missile, huh?

Great. What's next?

Originally posted by wholetruth
they even made up some # about saddam sending them to syria to protect their idol......

We have several reports of WMDs being moved to Syria. We also have the photos of the hidden and buried MIG planes.

Maybe you should do some research so at least it seems like you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by wholetruth
they even made up some # about saddam sending them to syria to protect their idol......

We have several reports of WMDs being moved to Syria. We also have the photos of the hidden and buried MIG planes.

Maybe you should do some research so at least it seems like you know what you are talking about.

yea einstein, saddam would rather be dead than have used them to remain in power and stay alive.........

The other night on C Span they were talking about the Flight 93 incident and one of the speakers stated that "without apparent confidence in the official explanation, we will never know if the aircraft crashed as a result of the passengers attempt to thwart the hijacker or, the flight was shot out of the sky. Right now we simply do not know what really happened."

I think there will be much more debate in the future as long as this incident remains in the minds of many who do not believe the official accounting. Skeptics are fine to doubt but that doubt only helps the truth come out because those who remain as such skeptics, do so with only the OS and that has already been discounted by many.