Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, and this is the biggest 9/11 cover up of them all.

off course they took it down
are u suggetisting,they should have let it fly on??

reply to post by icecold7


Maybe they didn't want it shot down:

Was the 9/11 conspiracy a failure

The article below, written by John Ray, suggests that the real plan behind 9/11 was to provide enough of a reason to declare martial law, and that flight 93 was supposed to hit the White House. However, as the links below show, Dick Cheney was inside the White House in a basement control room, and therefore it looks more likely that the real target was the Capitol building. This view is reinforced by the fact that Congress was still sitting at 9:37 when the Pentagon was hit, and they were not even advised to evacuate until some minutes afterwards, which was about a whole hour after the first attacks in New York had taken place.

Well, the end game was this: Flight 93 was to land on the Whitehouse. You see, under US law at the time, if that happened, it would be martial law in the US and under those conditions, the entire 911 plot could have been completely tidied up, all the evidence buried. We would not be able to have the 911 truth movement today. Anyone claiming that it was an inside job would be so far out on the extremes of conspiracy theory that they would never be taken seriously and certainly must less of the material available today would have been available to the truth movement.

I think this theory has some merit and not many people really look at this side of the debate.
(some links in article are broken/404 making it hard to follow up all claims )

-sorry if this topic has been posted already....i skimmed

reply to post by sacryn


Sorry...you should always thoroughly check your sources. Won't go into just how many times that piece of filfth "article" is wrong...others can see it for the trash it is...but its most damning problem is its orginal starting point:

"godlikeproductions"

A site very well-known to be full of nothing but utter hogwash.

[edit on 6 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

So let me get this straight, you are saying that 9/11 was the work of Muslim extremists, and that the U.S. had to shoot down the plane because otherwise it would crash into the White House (probably a section under construction on the opposite wing of where any elected officials were not to mention Bush was not at the white house that day, but side issue), and so because the government didn't want people to think they would shoot down a civilian aircraft, even though that is part of the operations of the air force for decades, they created the 9/11 truth movement in order to cover up for this one incident in which they were merely following their own regulations.

So, in order to prevent people from getting mad that they shot down a passenger plane, they instead make up this conspiracy that Bush and Co. planned the attack in order to enslave America in a perpetual war on terrorism.

I think you are struggling to cope with the reality: that the Bush administration, namely the dual Israeli citizens in his cabinet, knew about the attack and used it to their advantage.

reply to post by filosophia


If people here would grab a cold one of whatever, sit back and observe within an objective mindset. Many would see & discover that there is more evidence to suggest...repeat that...suggest that it was shot down. Compared to any other theory including the 911 Report.



Above is:

Date: 08 September 1994
Airline: USAir
Flight No.: 427
Aircraft: B737-300
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Fatalities: 132:132

Aviation Safety Network: "The plane descended fast and impacted the ground nose first at 261 knots in an 80deg nose down, 60deg left bank attitude and with significant sideslip."

It seems to me quite likely that they shot it down, and then kept quiet about it.

Given that the heroic passengers story gained very quick traction, I doubt you'd want to butt in and say - "oh yeah, they were just about to retake the cockpit but then we blasted them out of the sky. Oops."

Better to try and protect the only slightly positive story of the day (and it is a positive - I remain in awe of the actions of those people, given how terrifying it must have been.)

reply to post by mikelee


Yes, mikelee, we (in the aviation community) are well aware of USAir 427.

Your short description only mentions its impact velocity as 261 knots. This is significantly slower than United 93's velocity at impact.

(Recall the formula for energy/velocity relationship in momentum, and kinetic).

Further, it's important to note the very different qualities of the terrain where each hit, and the separate reasons for the two accidents, for comparison.

(USAir was in controlled flight, being radar-vectored for an Approach to the Pittsburgh Airport, level and configured for "maneuvering speed" prepatory to commencing the final approach procedure. Flaps/slats extended, and airspeed around 170-180 knots. The roll-over, and loss of control, with the nose pointing at the extreme down attitude, relative to the horizon --- and the crew's inability, due to the initial low altitude above ground, to effect recovery in time, meant that the airspeed built up due to gravity, alone. NOT from increased thrust from the engines, nor from intentional maneuvering to hit the ground).

There was one other similar Boeing 737 rudder PCU-related crash, United 585 in Colorado Springs. Even lower altitude, airplane was fully configured for landing, (speed about 140 kts) and the drop was only about 1,500 feet, from the within the turn from base leg to final approach.

Some HIGH-velocity "intact" (as opposed to in-fli8ght break ups) airplane impacts are PSA 1771, ValuJet 595, and SwissAir 111...and of course, EgyptAir 990.

*(And the recent Iran flight)*.

PSA into a combination hard-packed dirt/rocky hillside/field, ValuJet into a swamp, and the other two into the ocean. *(Iran, into a plowed field)*

Three loss of control due to onboard fires, and one a suicidal plunge initiated by the working and scheduled relief First Officer --- on EgyptAir.

PSA was also a suicide, disgruntled former employee.

Hitting the surface of the water at high speed in very much like hitting a solid surface, in that a great deal of fragmentation occurs. Look at photos of the debris reconstruction that are available.

Comparing examples of airplane carshes, though, is not always helpful, since rarely are any two exqactly similar. Many variables at work.

But, it does provide some basis to extract clues, and inferences.











[edit on 8 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I believe that due to the extreme nature of these type of inverted accidents, that they are probably in many ways, more alike than anything else. Due to the unique conditions that take place during each.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I believe that due to the extreme nature of these type of inverted accidents, that they are probably in many ways, more alike than anything else. Due to the unique conditions that take place during each.

So - the unique conditions of each crash cause them to be alike? I would think that the unique conditions would cause unique, not similar, effects.

They say one of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Is the inverse also true? Doing different things over and over, but expecting the same results?

reply to post by mikelee


This is confusing, and it seems to indicate YOUR lack of understanding as to the specifics of each comparable accident:

I believe that due to the extreme nature of these type of inverted accidents, that they are probably in many ways, more alike than anything else.

I invite you to read through these NTSB accident reports, and assimilate the data contained therein:


USAir 427, NTSB Docket No. SA-510

United 585 NTSB report

ValueJet 592 NTSB
report

And, my also be useful for further education. The Canadian Transport Safety Board uses different formatting than the U.S. NTSB in their final reports, and it took me a little more effort to find a source link. I haven't read through, nor am I familar with Canada's procedures for reporting, as I am with the NTSB's.

SwissAir 111

[edit on 10 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


OK. Thats your opinion. Fine with me.