Plane crashes in Guyana, Doesn't Disappear upon impact. 9/11 still a total lie

reply to post by TupacShakur

I think it was shot down by our military....

So, they shot it down and then faked the crash site?????

reply to post by hooper


That's where my mind gets fuzzy. There are reports, or at the very least extremely strong hints, of it being shot down by members of the military.

However when you look at the crash site, it doesn't appear that way at all.

The only possible explanantion I can think of is they shot it down, and that's what the debris site 6-8 miles away that was closed off was. Then, the nearby debris site was faked to look like it was the real one to hide the fact that our own military shot down a commercial airplane filled with dozens of citizens.

However if that was the case, did some FBI agents just happen to be in the area with duffle bags filled with airplane parts? Or was it planned to be shot down and covered up? It's a real mind f***.

I also remember reading another thread a while back that showed a before and after of the shanksville site, and the gash in the ground was actually present before the plane crash. Here's the image of a trench there before the plane crash occured: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/caaa1b5e1275.jpg[/atsimg] Did the plane just happen to hit exactly where a pre-existing trench was?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spills the beans in his Freudian slip that he tries to recover from:

Shanksville is a really sketchy spot, but I don't like getting into it because a discussion over that topic requires lots of speculation.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spills the beans in his Freudian slip that he tries to recover from:

Hi, Tupac.

Debunkers are quick to dismiss Rumsfeld's statement about the missile shooting down the plane by claiming he "misspoke" due to fatigue or what not. Let me just say, "LOL" to that.

I find it quite a stretch for even the feeblest of minds to make the leap from a plane crashing after it's passengers tried to overtake highjackers, to the scenario that the plane was shot down by a missile.

WOW.....just, WOW.......

All I'm saying is that if passengers on flight 93 managed to rescue the plane from the hijackers in Shanksville, then why did they crash it straight into the ground? Why didn't they at least try to land it upright for a chance of survival?

Are you trying to tell me that Bruce Willis and Achmed the Hijacker both had their hands on the wheel at the same time while punching each other and couldn't pull up soon enough?

And if for some reason the passengers taking control of the plane from the hijackers is true, then one of the passengers flying the plane committed suicide and mass murder by crashing the plane on purpose to kill everyone on board.

Ahh, F#$^ it... let's celebrate the American heroism of the OS!

reply to post by tooo many pills

All I'm saying is that if passengers on flight 93 managed to rescue the plane from the hijackers in Shanksville, then why did they crash it straight into the ground? Why didn't they at least try to land it upright for a chance of survival? Are you trying to tell me that Bruce Willis and Achmed the Hijacker both had their hands on the wheel at the same time while punching each other and couldn't pull up soon enough? And if for some reason the passengers taking control of the plan from the hijackers is true, then one of the passengers flying the plane committed suicide and mass murder by crashing the plan on purpose to kill everyone on board. Ahh, F#$^ it... let's celebrate the American heroism of the OS!

I like your post, Pills.....

Personally, I'm not convinced that the whole crash of Flight 93 isn't one big lie, period. Too many suspicious circumstances, lack of evidence to suggest a plane crash, talk of missiles being the cause of the crash, highly questionable phone calls to family members of alleged victims, circumstances suggesting that some of the victims didn't even exist, discrepancies in the number of passengers, strange coincidental ties between some of the passengers.

This particular scenario in the 9/11 attacks wreaks to high heaven. That is my own personal opinion. Whether anyone else wishes to subscribe to this opinion is his or her choice, as I have no desire to argue these points again which have been rehashed a multitude of times in the past 10 years.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Your post confused me, here you say that it's funny that people think Rumsfelds Freudian Slip was simply a mistake:

Debunkers are quick to dismiss Rumsfeld's statement about the missile shooting down the plane by claiming he "misspoke" due to fatigue or what not. Let me just say, "LOL" to that.

But here you say it's a huge stretch to think that the plane was shot down by a missile because the people on the hijacked plane attempted to take it back over:

I find it quite a stretch for even the feeblest of minds to make the leap from a plane crashing after it's passengers tried to overtake highjackers, to the scenario that the plane was shot down by a missile.

I seem to have misinterpreted your post pretty hard, can you explain that last quote?

reply to post by TupacShakur

I seem to have misinterpreted your post pretty hard, can you explain that last quote?

Sorry, Tupac, I guess I should have worded it differently.

What I'm saying is that it's hard for me to imagine that a person in Rumsfeld's position could "mistakenly" say that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by a missile if the true reason for the crash was passengers trying to overtake highjackers. The two scenarios couldn't be more different, yet there are still who try to make excuses for Rumsfeld by claiming he simply "misspoke."

reply to post by NightGypsy

What I'm saying is that it's hard for me to imagine that a person in Rumsfeld's position could "mistakenly" say that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by a missile if the true reason for the crash was passengers trying to overtake highjackers. The two scenarios couldn't be more different, yet there are still who try to make excuses for Rumsfeld by claiming he simply "misspoke."

Ah yeah I completely agree. But why bother covering it up? I think Colonel Bob Marr put it best, they took some lives in the air to prevent the death of hundreds on the ground.

From a fighter pilots perspective, you're hearing reports that hijacked planes have already crashed into the twin towers and lots of people are dying, then you get a report that another plane is hijacked and is heading towards DC. What could they possibly have done to save the lives on the ground other than shoot the plane down? Pull up next to it, pull out a whiteboard and magic marker, write "PULL OVER" on it and hold it up to the cockpit glass?

I think the military was justified in shooting down Flight 93, what do you think?

reply to post by NightGypsy


Yeah, I'm not sure what to really believe either. I just know the tale of flight 93 had some holes in it, so they made a Hollywood movie about its official story to clear up any confusion or conflicting thoughts we might have had about what happened. It's based on a true story.

I am however positive that the OS is not 100% true. Which parts? We will never know for sure, but we've got to trust our instincts and the facts or lack thereof.

reply to post by TupacShakur


EXACTLY! That was going to be my next point.

I think Americans would have understood if there had been a decision to shoot the plane down to avoid larger casualties. The crew still would have been revered as heroes for having sacrificed their lives, even if it wasn't by their choice.

This is the aspect that has always puzzled me. Even if a missile did NOT shoot down Flight 93 and a deliberate attempt is being made to cover up the facts surrounding this flight, the missile story would have facilitated their attempts to explain it much easier than the one we've got. The evidence at the crash does not even come close to corroborating the OS, in my opinion. If anything, the OS has raised more suspicion.

Perhaps the government believes us to be so brain dead these days that they had little concern for important details. Their arrogance is unsurpassed in this regard.

reply to post by NightGypsy

I think the military was justified in shooting down Flight 93, what do you think?

I think the fact that the OS is absent of ANY action on the part of our military whatsoever that successfully thwarted ANY of these attacks is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that points to an inside job.

reply to post by NightGypsy


And a perfect excuse for why our miltary spending has tripled since.

Now we are protected... but from who?

reply to post by TupacShakur

But yeah, the Shanksville plane crash site is a joke. There were like 4 pieces of debris larger than a phonebook. There was also a secondary debris site 6-8 miles away that was closed off by the FBI, and a witness saw a jet flying away from the crash site. I think it was shot down by our military, and there were members of the military basically admit that it was shot to prevent life on the ground.

Tell me this is bigger than a phone book...?



or this



or this piece of landing gear



Or this entire jet engine



or this construction bin filled with debris, they filled 10 of them at the site. Lot of stuff looks bigger than a
phone book



As for secondary debris field - it was in reality only 1 mile away. Composed of paper scraps and insulation,
lightweight materials blown by wind

The 6-8 miles comes from dumb asses who typed location into mapping programs and got "DRIVING
INSTRUCTIONS" - tell me the debris followed the roads there

Again you a liar.......

reply to post by filosophia


So you are comparing a small aircraft skidding off runway during landing to a large jet liner hitting the ground
nose down at 575 mph?

Right....?

reply to post by thedman


Why is that jet engine buried a foot deep in dirt?

reply to post by tooo many pills

All I'm saying is that if passengers on flight 93 managed to rescue the plane from the hijackers in Shanksville, then why did they crash it straight into the ground? Why didn't they at least try to land it upright for a chance of survival?

According to cockpit voice recorder passengers were attempting to batter in cockpit door, never actually
got into cockpit. Had killed the hijackers assigned to guard them and were attempting to get into cockpit
to wrest control away from hijackers

At this point hijackers made decision to crash plane rather than lose control

reply to post by thedman


Why couldn't they get in?

Originally posted by lernmore
The plane in your OP skidded off the runway on landing and everyone lived..

Are you seriously trying to compare the two?

Think man think.

I'm sorry but thinking is the one thing no one needs to do, to know we are constantly lied to about everything under the sun. No one needs even a brain to know that. I think OPs analogy is perfect. Given the proper amount of text I would have starred and flagged this thead. No flag. But still worth a star.

reply to post by thedman

Three of those images were larger than a phone book, and the rest were smaller. So like I said, there were only a few pieces of debris larger than a phonebook.

As for secondary debris field - it was in reality only 1 mile away. Composed of paper scraps and insulation,
lightweight materials blown by wind

The 6-8 miles comes from dumb asses who typed location into mapping programs and got "DRIVING
INSTRUCTIONS" - tell me the debris followed the roads there

So those reports of the FBI closing off another site were just some conspiracy theorist razzle dazzle? I guess the witness testimony of a fighter jet passing over a guys house just happened to coincide with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying that Flight 93 was shot down.

reply to post by thedman

According to cockpit voice recorder passengers were attempting to batter in cockpit door, never actually
got into cockpit. Had killed the hijackers assigned to guard them and were attempting to get into cockpit
to wrest control away from hijackers

At this point hijackers made decision to crash plane rather than lose control

Really? Because Alex Jones interviewed Col. Donn de Grand and he says some interesting things:

John: And was United Airlines Flight 93 shot down in Pennsylvania by a U.S. or NATO pilot and was that what was supposed to hit the Pentagon?

DGP: No, that was hit at 10:00 hours. It was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93.

John: Was it shot down because the airline pilots actually regained control of the hijacked auto-pilot or was that to replace the unmanned drone that was shot down?

DGP: No, it was the aircraft, you see, had totally unconscious people on board. There were no hijackers. At 9:35, the Happy Hooligans, the Air Guard flying the F-16s were ordered to take that plane out. And they took it out from 9:35 to 10:00..........Well, this is correct, but you see the Adj. General of the State of North Dakota gave the command to take it out. And, by God, they took it out.