Flight 93 "shoot down order" whistleblower Feb 2009

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Click link for audio interview:

www.projectcamelot.net...

Quote off Project Camelot Site:

"Elizabeth Nelson :
What really happened to Flight 93

Your post makes no sense whatsoever. All during the 9/11 commission hearings, and it's repeated in the commission report for everyone to see, that the Pentagon was entirely up front with the fact they were actively hunting flight 93, and they admitted they would definitely have shot it down if they had found it. They had no idea where flight 93 was going, but they knew full well what it was going to do once it got there.

How is it "whistleblowing" to point out a fact that had been revealed years ago in a publication meant for public review? More to the point, how absurd is it to claim that after the Pentagon admitted they were actively hunting flight 93 and admitted they would have shot it down if they had found it, there's a coverup over their actually shooting it down?

I knew this a long time ago when a military personal dropped a hint to my uncle that it was shot down by our own military.

Understandably so, they would of had time by that time.

For the first day after the crash, I remember hearing reports of witnesses that they saw something fly at the plane. Then those reports dissapeared.

It was easier for the gov't to let people think that it was brought down.But if you actually listen to the tape, there is no real indication that the passengers did it, it was a planted suggestion.


I don't blame the military, it has to be done. I feel for the pilot that got that order though. That has to suck. The guilt would be horrible.

But if this confession is true, then it means for sure that it was actually terrorists, and that takes the fun out of the conspiracy. Because the Us wouldnt' shoot down its own mission.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I knew this a long time ago when a military personal dropped a hint to my uncle that it was shot down by our own military.

Yet another Anonymous Authorities fallacy. Same as the OP. Strictly hearsay and nothing else.

i thought this page was pretty informative, especially when you view the comparison of the ordnance blast versus a plane crash explosion...

www.thewebfairy.com...

if the pictures are really of the 9/11 crash, then the smoke plume doesn't look anything like from a jet crash...

I say we all should stick our heads in the sand and stop asking questions, and we should believe what the honest media, and the honest government reports that tell us all the truth. I mean the ex President said that we should not believe in any conspiracies theories.
Who are we to “dare,” ask questions of our elected officials? I mean our government in the Bush administration is not going to be held accountable for anything; they are above the laws in these United States.

I think camronfox is right, I think 19 highjackers flew four airplanes, for an hour, over highly restricted airspace, and over our nuclear power plants, and not had to worry about NORAD intervening, or shooting down the highjacked airplanes.

I guess it is common knowledge that, when an airplane crashes from 30,000 feet straight down “nose dive” that it buries it self-30 feet in the ground to never be found ever again leaving no traces of ever existing.

I am sure there are records everywhere that proves this.

reply to post by CameronFox


I know enough about basic common sense that objects weighing over 1000 pounds do not blow or roll away several hundred yards from plane crash sites, in somewhat rough, hilly terrain. Not to mention pieces of luggage, paperwork, and smaller debris was found miles from the site. Seeing how winds at the time were mild, the soil damp from recent rain, common sense should tell you that the impact alone did not disperse all this wreckage all over the freakin place.

As far as "The engines running at 100% on impact, I'm afraid witness testimony contradicts this as well.

Source 1

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising. "I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close."

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."

When Flight 93 came down, the eyewitnesses seem to agree on a few basic facts -- that the Boeing 757 was headed south or southeast very fast, that it was flying erratically or banking from side to side, that its right wing dipped steeply down and that the jetliner came down at close to a 90-degree angle. A number of people quoted right after the crash said there were strange noises, that the engine seemed to race but then went eerily silent as the plane plummeted.

Now of course, in the same article, we have two witnesses saying they saw nothing like smoke and the like, that the plane seemed "largely" intact.

But an eyewitness, Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes and has reached the opposite conclusion. She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth. "It's not true," said Shepley of the persistent rumors. "If it had been shot down, there would have been pieces flying, but it was intact -- there was nothing wrong with it."

The plane seemed to be fully, or largely, intact. "I didn't see no smoke, nothing," said Nevin Lambert, an elderly farmer who witnessed the crash from his side yard less than a half-mile away. Lambert also said he also later found a couple of pieces of debris, one a piece of metal, less than 12 inches across, with some insulation attached. To those who are debating the causes of the crash, the debris is particularly significant because heavier farflung debris would suggest that something happened to cause the plane to break up before it hit the ground. Authorities also sought to explain why a number of residents saw a small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after. Workers at a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades, who was in her small summer cottage about a quarter-mile from the impact site.

Yet we have far more eyewitness accounts that state that the plane was flying upside down, loud booms, ect. This is curious.

Source 2

Some witnesses reported that the plane was flying upside down for a time before the crash; others said they heard up to three loud booms before the jetliner went down.

"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believeD the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where.

We have the testimony of one of the sadly deceased victims stating that he did see white smoke. So someone did indeed see smoke.

And of course, shootdowns can be accomplished with conventional guns that all fighters have. Missiles aren't necessary at all, normal fighter guns can do the trick nicely too. A right hit at the right point, and a plane can be brought down without a massivie amount of pyrotechnics.

I'm not suggesting taking away her religious freedom. The chick is clearly lying at LEAST about the spirit leaving the body....even though the man was alive.

How is this lying? Several people say the spirit remains close to the body before it totally passes away, sort of lingers outside until death is final. I fail to even see the point here.

I am not confident that it is BS any more than I am confident that it is entirely accurate. It is a grey piece, but a very interesting grey piece, nonetheless. Until something more solid comes along to either trash it or confirm it, I see it as something that should be filed away as an interesting possibility of something, either truth or hoax.

The facts are the facts.

This woman (whistle blower) has come forward to tell of what she heard from source that day.

We were not there.

The only question about this SHOULD be - is she lying or not? I don't know just yet, however I find ANY witness testimony relevant to this false flag event which was and still is being played out.

Lets hope she stays in the spotlight and isn't conveniently killed in a car/plane/train/helicopter/submarine crash.

Takes a lot of testicular fortitude to come forward on public record to effectively expose a lie at a high level. It takes NOTHING to berate her and her information.

wZn

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I knew this a long time ago when a military personal dropped a hint to my uncle that it was shot down by our own military.

Yet another Anonymous Authorities fallacy. Same as the OP. Strictly hearsay and nothing else.

Why are you so angry? You don't think your government is capable of doing such a thing eh? To serve you and protect you right? Perhaps if you dwell into history - you'll see a common thread - conspiracy.

You are on a conspiracy site - so I believe you do believe in conspiracy? With all the evidence such as whistle blower testimony , you still have your eyes closed and hands over your ears - quite strange. Hearsay does not dismiss the message of the whistle blower - unless you can prove she is lying. You have not done that - you have laid into character assassination, and anyone that has their opinion you bully your own illogical opinion at them.

wZn

Now hold on a sec folks. IF 93 was shot down, doesn't this mean that there WERE TERRORISTS that hijacked aircraft on 9/11? I mean if certain 9/11 conspiracy theorists are so adamint that 93 was shot down and proof of a "cover up" and "inside job", then what exactly was the purpose of shooting down Flt 93 and then covering it up?

It does not make a lick of sense. If we are to believe that there were no terrorist hijackers at all on 9/11, that everything was done "inside job-ly" with magic bombs, remote control airplanes with decoys, magic thermite, missiles and whatever, then Flt 93 shouldnt have happened. If Flt 93 was under (insert secret govt organization here) control, then what was the point of shooting it down, and then saying the passangers fought back and covering up the shoot down? If it was shot down then there were AQ hijackers on board and they did it. And that is an admission to there were terrorists hijackers behind the 9/11 attacks, which means all this "inside job" is a giant steaming load of bull plop.

Look at it logically. Say it was remote controlled. Why shoot it down? Why not just make it crash where ever they wanted to? Just flip it over and boom! Why shoot it down and cover it up? If it was remote controlled and say they "lost control" over it why not just let it crash on its own where ever? Just say it ran out of fuel or whatever and it crashed. Why make it so damn complicated the it has to? Why fake the calls and everything? I mean people why make it so damn complicated? This is exactly why I have a hard time believing these conspiracy fantasies. It makes it so much more complicated, so unbelievably messed up with so many oppertunities to get busted if all doesnt work out exactly as planned. It boggles the mind. And for gosh sakes, Bush couldnt even keep the wiretaps secret or Abu Graib secret! And people are convinced he helped orchestrate this whole thing? Geeze!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I know enough about basic common sense that objects weighing over 1000 pounds do not blow or roll away several hundred yards from plane crash sites, in somewhat rough, hilly terrain.

It was not the complete engine. (i see you backed off your two engines were found a 1/2 mile away)

Not to mention pieces of luggage, paperwork, and smaller debris was found miles from the site. Seeing how winds at the time were mild, the soil damp from recent rain, common sense should tell you that the impact alone did not disperse all this wreckage all over the freakin place.

Please explain to us without common sense where you think the debris should have landed. Please keep in mind the NTSB will disagree with you as they stated the light weight debris found in Baltimore were appropriate in an 11 MPH wind.

As far as "The engines running at 100% on impact, I'm afraid witness testimony contradicts this as well.

Your link provides a variety of testimony including yet ANOTHER anonymous authority fallacy. (the hearsay statement you posted below) I think what it again proves is that witnesses all seem to remember different things.

"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile,"

Of all of the statements, none of them witnessed the plane smoking, on fire, or breaking up.

I suggest reading the FDR report to understand the position of flight 93 in it's final moments.

We have the testimony of one of the sadly deceased victims stating that he did see white smoke. So someone did indeed see smoke.

No we don't. Ed Felt did not see white smoke. The 911 operator that took the call did not hear him say this. His brother Gordon Felt listened to the 911 tape. HE did not hear him state that. The transcript released via FOIA request did not show it. There is only one person that made this claim and that was the operator's supervisor who picked up a "spy phone" in the middle of the c all.

And of course, shootdowns can be accomplished with conventional guns that all fighters have. Missiles aren't necessary at all, normal fighter guns can do the trick nicely too. A right hit at the right point, and a plane can be brought down without a massivie amount of pyrotechnics.

Not one witness to the sounds of a gun. FDR would have shown discrepancies. It did not.

How is this lying? Several people say the spirit remains close to the body before it totally passes away, sort of lingers outside until death is final. I fail to even see the point here.

She is embellishing here. If oyu want to believe her pathetic story, be my guest.

I see it as something that should be filed away as an interesting possibility of something, either truth or hoax.

Your prerogative. I call it a hoax.

Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all.
The debris does NOT represent that of an aircraft that was shot down.
2nd. FDR was sent to Honeywell Laboratory (the manufacturer) to dissect the information. This data showed that both engines were running at 100% at the time just prior to impact.
3rd. Witnesses that saw the plane prior to impact did not say the plane was on fire or that smoke was witnessed.

First of all.
What debris?
2nd. Alleged FDR has never been identified by serial number.
3rd. Witnesses like Viola Saylor and Susan McElwain contradict other witness statements and the official story.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Why are you so angry? You don't think your government is capable of doing such a thing eh?

You are on a conspiracy site - so I believe you do believe in conspiracy? With all the evidence such as whistle blower testimony , you still have your eyes closed and hands over your ears - quite strange. Hearsay does not dismiss the message of the whistle blower - unless you can prove she is lying. You have not done that - you have laid into character assassination, and anyone that has their opinion you bully your own illogical opinion at them.

wZn

I am not angry at all. I am stating a fact. The OP and the post I commented on are nothing but hearsay. You responded with a strawman. I never even HINTED at the thought that I may or may not think my government is capable of doing anything.

We don't have a whistle blower's testimony. We have an alleged statement from an alleged former PFC, that was allegedly working at a military hospital. One minute she is giving barium enemas, the next she is witnessing the biggest cover up in American History. I am not bullying anything...I am not assassinating anyone's character. What I am doing is using common sense. I wish I could say the same for some others.

Just because terrorists were involved does not rule out inside job/conspiracy. I personally believed that whoever was flying those planes was doing so with the full knowledge of certain individuals high up in the government. They may not have known that the government knew what they were up to, but that does not change anything.

As to why the government decided this plane had to come down and not the other three, a number of possibilities exist. One is, while the WTC and pentagon attacks were desired events, the fourth one, whose possible targets included the White House, Capitol Hill, or any of the Pennsylvania nuclear power plants, was not headed for a target they found desirable. The other three having accomplished the desired ends, the fourth one needed to be taken down to ensure it did NOT reach it's destination, which was likely something that the few in the government who had the knowing, did not want.

Another theory, and mostly a speculative one, but still another possibility, is that the passengers had succeeded in taking back the plane. Amongst the passengers there were two individuals, one who was a retired pilot and one who was an off duty air traffic controler, who could have perhaps safely landed the plane, or at least minimized the number of casualties attempting to do so. So with surviving witnesses and passengers... well, what if it happened that the hijackers were NOT who the government claimed them to be? Or that there were other odd things going on?

Shooting down flight 93 does not negate the likelyhood of government compliance. It might negate or challenge certain 9/11 conspiracy theories that are already a major subject of debate, such as the no planes theory, but it does not diminish the overall case for at the minimum, government compliance.

Originally posted by tezzajw

First of all.
What debris?
2nd. Alleged FDR has never been identified by serial number.
3rd. Witnesses like Viola Saylor and Susan McElwain contradict other witness statements and the official story.

1- The planted debris

2- The planted FDR with data that you need to read.

3- You mean witnesses like Bob Blair, Eric Peterson, Rob Kimmel, Tim Lensbouer, Tom Fritz, Terry Butler, and Lee Purbaugh... all support the FDR.

or maybe Kelly Leverknight, Tim Thornsberg, or Paula Pluta?

Originally posted by CameronFox


It was not the complete engine. (i see you backed off your two engines were found a 1/2 mile away)

No I haven't. And it was found about a half mile away. It weighed a ton. How did it get that far, especially when the impact crater was deep, and the ground was quite soft? That 11MPH wind?

Mystery of Debris Field

Please explain to us without common sense where you think the debris should have landed. Please keep in mind the NTSB will disagree with you as they stated the light weight debris found in Baltimore were appropriate in an 11 MPH wind.

Now what would be the point, since you so obviously believe the NTSB, that joke of an agency that is convinced TWA Flight 800's tanks magically exploded by themselves, amongst other idiot assumptions on their part. But if you insist...

A plane traveling at the 500MPH supposedly given by the authorities crashes into soft landfill of an abandoned stripmine, and is so utterly destroyed that the largest piece of the fuselage to survive was 2 meteres across roughly.

Meanwhile, investigators say they've found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site. A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair.

Debris Fields

The NTSB believes it "probable" that a 9 knot wind blew lighter pieces 8 miles away over hilly and often wooded terrain in less than 2 days....sure. Whatever. Did the Easter Bunny tell them where to look, or was it the Great Pumpkin, seeing how it occurred closer to halloween?

Your link provides a variety of testimony including yet ANOTHER anonymous authority fallacy. (the hearsay statement you posted below) I think what it again proves is that witnesses all seem to remember different things.

The majority of the statements are not hearsay. The mayor of this small community simply pointed out what some individuals have told him. The rest of the witnesses have names. I Only posted a few, several other witness statements were in the link.

Of all of the statements, none of them witnessed the plane smoking, on fire, or breaking up.

I suggest reading the FDR report to understand the position of flight 93 in it's final moments.

The FDR? You mean the flight data recorder that was so OBVIOUSLY tampered with, with a whole three minutes of data erased, mysteriously gone? Alot of help that will do, as it is quite incomplete at the final three crucial moments of the flight.

The official account claims flight 93 crashed at 10:03 AM, when numerous independant sources agree it was three minutes later at 10:06 AM. The FDR has parts seemingly erased in those last three minutes.

Sesmic Records

Flight 93 Disappears from Radar At 10:06 AM

Original FAA Declaration that it Crashed at 10:06 A.M.

Not to mention that several news sources that day set the time at 10:06. So what happened to the last three minutes of the FDR?

FDR Transcript

Interestingly enough, it took them HOW LONG to finally release the transcripts, even after victim's families requested it? What's up with that?

FBI Refused to Release Transcripts

When They Act Like This, Is It Any Wonder People Get Suspicous?

No we don't. Ed Felt did not see white smoke. The 911 operator that took the call did not hear him say this. His brother Gordon Felt listened to the 911 tape. HE did not hear him state that. The transcript released via FOIA request did not show it. There is only one person that made this claim and that was the operator's supervisor who picked up a "spy phone" in the middle of the c all.

This same tape that was seized by the FBI, the operated ordered not to discuss it, and not released until years later? The superviser heard the call, and according to him, the guy saw white smoke. Several different Mainstream news Sources state this.

Source 1

Source 2

If the supervisor picked up a spy phone, then he would have heard the conversation too, no?

Not one witness to the sounds of a gun. FDR would have shown discrepancies. It did not.

Of course it didn't. The last three minutes of the FDR went missing. Around the time when a shootdown would have occurred.

She is embellishing here. If oyu want to believe her pathetic story, be my guest.

I neither believe nor disbelieve. It's interesting, and worth noting in case something comes up in the future to bolster or debunk it. It is plausible either way.

Your prerogative. I call it a hoax.

Call it what you like. Unless you actually have evidence of truth or hoax, I'll believe neither.

edit.....








[edit on 8-4-2009 by CameronFox]

Her account makes sense as I have always said there is no way in hell that anyone in our government would be willing to face the public and say:"Look Flight 93 was not responding and was near restricted air space so we followed protocol and shot it down."

Reading this thread has been one of the most hilarious belly laughs I've had this week. For those who believe this tripe is real....well.....you are certainly gullible. There are additional words that could be added, but I'll be nice.

Fort Meade is mostly staffed by the US Army. The Base Commander (which was referenced in the article) most definitely would be US Army. Base Commanders in the US Army have NO OPERATIONAL CONTROL or say so about anything OPERATIONAL. That's just one significant problem with the authenticity of this. Why and HOW would US Army personnel at Fort Meade, MD even know about UA 93 in the first place? NEADS (who was controlling the battle) did not know about UA 93 until a few minutes after it crashed and ALLl of the activity that occurred at NEADS is on tape. Hours and hours of tape.

US Army personnel at Ft Meade or anywhere else had NO AUTHORITY to authorize anything related to 9/11, especially anything related to a shoot down of a civilian airliner. They were NOT in any kind of Command and Control loop of any nature, period.

Where did these fighters that supposedly shot down UA 93 originate. All of the fighter activity on 9/11 is recorded on MULTIPLE radar sites which correlates with records of flight plans and departures from military airports. It all fits together like a glove. There were no fighters near UA 93 when it crashed into that field near Shanksville, PA.

Another preposterous item in this charade is that a PFC Nurse who was giving enemas at the hospital was tasked to be a gopher for what was said to be a high level meeting of base officials. While that part is plausible, it is hilarious that these two people referenced were told to look at the wall and not listen to the conversation. Do you really think that people who achieve higher rank are stupid? If you buy this you have just swallowed one of the enemas administered by the author, ORALLY.

If that isn't enough to realize this stuff is worthless tripe, the debris field near Shanksville IS NOT consistent with a shoot down. It is consistent with the story that has been told. Those in control flew it at high speed into the ground and it looks just like it ought to look for a crash of that type in the type of soil it hit.

I won't address the FDR, the recovered remains, the DNA of those remain plus a mountain of other evidence that all matches perfectly with the story that has been told.

I won't provide any links and I won't answer any questions because the previous discussion and my experience with conspiracy theorists has taught me one thing, you are not educatable and not willing to learn anything that doesn't fit with your fantasy. It is simply not worth my time as even writing this has been more than I should have spent on dirt dumb idiots.

Thanks, for the belly laugh.....

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

A plane traveling at the 500MPH supposedly given by the authorities crashes into soft landfill of an abandoned stripmine, and is so utterly destroyed that the largest piece of the fuselage to survive was 2 meteres across roughly.

Largest sections of wreckage - Flight 93





Bin containing recovered pieces of Flight 93



Was at crash site of Lear 35 - hit nose down at 350 mph (2/3 speed of Flight 93) . Lrgest section of debris found was 2x3 ft section of tail fin.
A landing light was found 75 yards away after striking parked vehicle.
Rest was metallic confetti. Not even jet engines survived

Nothing unusual about that....

reply to post by Reheat




You provide no links or bring no support because you have none, just mindless, unconscious rambling for no other purpose than to be a troll. Since it is clear that you know nothing of even the official accounts of the story, just blindly eat it up without reading it, kinda like Orwellian orthodoxy, I shall not bother with pointing out the numerous errors and idiocy of your amusing, yet pointless, tirade.

For others who might be curious, there were indeed fighter jets close enough to intercept, and let us not forget the mysterious white plane, either.

Feds Ready to Shoot

And Rumsfeld "Misspoke"