The Wreckage of FLT 93

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good point about the bombers. I also understand it's a possibility someone assumed the planes were shot down and that's why they passed that info along. My point is that if it was such a dramatic result to have a plane shot down, how could this person pass the message of a shoot down on so casually? The lack of emotion is mind blowing to me. Especially when it's not confirmed. If it's that uncommon and traumatizing, which it totally should be, then why would this person even jump to that conclusion so willingly above other options such as the fact that it crashed? Earlier a controller was told that a plane was down, and she sounded hopeful and said "when did he land?" She was then told he did not land but was down down. It's not just one instance either. The guy says possibly a COUPLE of planes were shot down. From his point of view, he hears planes are down and doesn't automatically think the plane had either crashed into a target like at least three others, and he doesn't think it crash landed. No, he does through the options and chooses to go with that it was shot down. Either his instincts tell a great deal more than I know about how often they shoot down passenger planes or he got the specific idea from someone else. Either choice spells trouble to me. Also, as the secretary Of defence, imagine being faced with the now fairly real possibility of having to explain to loved ones why the best option on how to stop one or more airliners with innocent civilians on board was to shoot them down? He goes out of his way earlier to confirm whether or not they have fighters in the air at all. He asks twice. Why would he not inquire about confirmation or sources for a shoot down? Particularly when there was allegedly no shoot down order for quite some time relative to when things started. How people react isn't evidence at all, but it's just another curiosity of mine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good point about the bombers. I also understand it's a possibility someone assumed the planes were shot down and that's why they passed that info along. My point is that if it was such a dramatic result to have a plane shot down, how could this person pass the message of a shoot down on so casually? The lack of emotion is mind blowing to me. Especially when it's not confirmed. If it's that uncommon and traumatizing, which it totally should be, then why would this person even jump to that conclusion so willingly above other options such as the fact that it crashed? Earlier a controller was told that a plane was down, and she sounded hopeful and said "when did he land?" She was then told he did not land but was down down. It's not just one instance either. The guy says possibly a COUPLE of planes were shot down. From his point of view, he hears planes are down and doesn't automatically think the plane had either crashed into a target like at least three others, and he doesn't think it crash landed. No, he does through the options and chooses to go with that it was shot down. Either his instincts tell a great deal more than I know about how often they shoot down passenger planes or he got the specific idea from someone else. Either choice spells trouble to me. Also, as the secretary Of defence, imagine being faced with the now fairly real possibility of having to explain to loved ones why the best option on how to stop one or more airliners with innocent civilians on board was to shoot them down? He goes out of his way earlier to confirm whether or not they have fighters in the air at all. He asks twice. Why would he not inquire about confirmation or sources for a shoot down? Particularly when there was allegedly no shoot down order for quite some time relative to when things started. How people react isn't evidence at all, but it's just another curiosity of mine.

a reply to: TheBolt

Part of it would be shock. There was a lot of that going around that day. Everyone woke up, and it was a gorgeous day, no problems had happened prior to that, and suddenly planes are slamming into things all over the East Coast, and no one had any idea what was going on. Everyone knew the US mainland was safe from attack, because no one had the logistics to get here to attack us, but here we were under attack, and there wasn't a damn thing the military could do to stop it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Shock might explain possibly the reaction by Rumsfeld but doesn't explain the original source of the shoot down report whatever it is. I know there was a lot of false reports of fires and other planes, etc. but this is a report of an aircraft being intentionally shot down. This is a report of someone allegedly making a decision that the situation they were in was so dire that the best option was to knowingly and intentionally sacrifice 60 some odd innocent people to save many more. I don't care what kind of shock a person is in. The thought of reporting this as an assumption doesn't/shouldn't just pop into someone's head without a serious reason. I don't think it's fair to question the calmness of Ted Olsen for instance. I don't think it's fair to judge people on how they acted because until I am in the situation, and nobody was ever in some of these situations before, I can't possibly know or even guess how I might handle myself. I admit I did just question both of these individuals directly based on their emotional reactions, but more to get to the basis of the whole concern: I still can't figure on a satisfactory explanation for the source of this report. Even if some were just shocked by the news and passed it along without thinking, the very first person to ever utter the idea would have had to get the idea from somewhere and shock or assumption just doesn't cut it for me.
PS tone is hard to read in text. Don't read this as argumentative as it might come across. I am passionate about this point, but I am listening to your explanations and trying to reason it out. It's great for me to have a serious back and forth with someone new because I hear the same information over and over from the same sources, so thanks again.

a reply to: TheBolt

Oh, I don't take anything as argumentative, unless it's blatant. I know how I can get with some things, so I don't take offense unless it's a blatant shot.

As for the reports, did you ever play the game Telephone as a kid? The first person would whisper something like "I like orange", and by the fourth person it was twisted into something completely unrecognizable. Anything that people are involved in can easily get twisted into god knows what, very easily.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. That telephone game is a serious eye opener. It's hard to believe what the last person says sometimes compared to what it was when it started. So correct me if I'm wrong but I can assume you believe the official story, and I may have already said that I tend to believe it for the most part. Is there any part of it you question?

a reply to: TheBolt

I'm convinced that it mostly happened the way they said, but that someone somewhere knew it was coming, and chose to take advantage of it. How high that went, I don't know, but someone knew what was coming.

a reply to: Zaphod58
That's where I'm at with it as well. I'm just trying to get a handle on the fine line between sitting back and allowing it to happen and the possibility that there was also a little help provided. I'm not talking about hitting extra unplanned targets or controlled demolition or drone planes or a stand down. I'm wondering more about false passports and security protection. Perhaps some withholding of intelligence information. Maybe even a little funding. It's hard to know how far to take it.

Why did I think the debris would be
meticulously reassembled like TWA 800 ?

If we were attacked by an actual foe,
I can assure you, the weapons debris wouldn't be crammed into
a railroad car and parked.
sloppy.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Aircraft are rebuilt if there's question as to what happened. It's expensive, and time consuming. In this case, they had the CVR and FDR data that showed it was a deliberate crash, as well as physical evidence that the aircraft was intact on impact. There was no need to rebuild the aircraft like there was with TWA 800, and a handful of other accidents.

a reply to: kwakakev

I am not aware of any air crash that is standard, they all have their own causes, faults and implications. What I was asking for was the standard methodology used to assess the incident and identify the causes. Flight 93 is not the only incident that day to get its investigation mistreated with rumor and innuendo throughout the media. The reasons of national security that stopped further investigation of very important questions throughout the 9/11 commission highlights a deep and systemic problem.

While some of the polling results do vary, over 50% of Americans know there are big problems with the 9/11 story. In Germany it is around 80-90% that put the blame within the US government, either by intentionally allowing it to happen or performing it all. Iran has been saying it for years at the United Nations, generally causing the US, Britain and Australia to walk out.

It is in the national interest to look like a goose on the international stage? Is it in the national interest for the worlds police force to be bent and corrupt without any standards of investigation? Is it in the national interest to have some kind of Hitler complex and go on campaign? Is it in the national interest to have to lie and deceive ourselfs for the sacrifice?

When looking at the amount and quality of investigation that goes on for one murder trial, surly the death of millions does deserve as much, if not more.


***Yeah I have to agree totally with you on this.
seems MIGHTY suspect to me too..

I was never too impressed with the theories that 93 was shot down or that there wasn't any debris or whatever.

If you think about it in a common sense sort of way, if this was a government conspiracy or whatever, it would have obviously been planned by people who should have been capable of making it look legit. So regardless of what any of us think of "evidence photos" no one should be surprised if they can produce photos of the evidence.

If they wanted this to look like terrorism, that's exactly what it would look like. It's not like a conspiracy would be done in a seat of the pants sort of way where they didn't know exactly how they were going to do it until they got there. No. It'd have been planned to look exactly like what they said it was.

So we have to assume that no matter what happened there, the wreckage does exist and for whatever reason, they didn't go out of their way to prove their story to the truthers. Most likely, they just didn't want to have the argument and they knew that whatever they said would either be believed or disbelieved anyway, depending on what an individual wanted to believe.

In other words, they apparently felt they had enough people who believed them and didn't want to complicate things with a noisy public argument.

And it's not really that unusual. When you have a plane crash or something, you generally don't see graphic photos on the front page of every newspaper.