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

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Lanton

So, what evidence is the theory based on? It's based mainly on the musings of a Professor Jim Fetzer, not surprisingly, the head of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and a man who's been quoted as calling for a 'second American Revolution.' Jim Fetzer claims that;

WTF are you talking about? None of my research has anything to do with Jim Fetzer or any organization. It's pulled from the official record and news articles within days of the event.

Why don't you try reading the thread before you comment on it.

All you did was take a bunch of unrelated and insignificant facts from official records, transcripts and interviews and mold them to conform with your 9/11 conspiracy theories.

For example, earlier on in this thread someone was saying how convenient it was that Flight 93 crashed in the middle of a field, with no witnesses around on the ground to see the plane in it's final moments as it hit the ground. All i can say to that is there are dozens of infamous airline crashes around the world where planes have crashed in remote areas, e.g. wooded areas, in swamps and, yes, remote dirt fields.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by denythestatusquo


why was it shot down where it crashed?

I think if any fighter pilot was given a order to shoot down a comerical airliner I would think he would also be ordered to try to shoot it down over the most unpopulated area he could find.

Look where this thing crashed


You couldnt ask for a better spot to down it.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

If you were trying to crash land a plane, you would look for an unpopulated place also.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Goog thread by the way.

why did they shoot this one down? well, out of the four planes that day, THIS one was late taking off by about 35-40 minutes. this enabled the people on this plane to find out about the others and what had happened. the passengers had said that they were attempting to retake the plane (and there was a passenger on the plane who was a pilot), maybe it was shot down because the government did not want any witnesses as to who or what really went down on that plane.

I question alot what happened that day, but if it is true that flight 93 shot down it was the only correct decision to make, but to cover it up was incredably stupid. Im sure everyone would of understood why it was done.

Originally posted by blackthorne
why did they shoot this one down? well, out of the four planes that day, THIS one was late taking off by about 35-40 minutes. this enabled the people on this plane to find out about the others and what had happened. the passengers had said that they were attempting to retake the plane (and there was a passenger on the plane who was a pilot), maybe it was shot down because the government did not want any witnesses as to who or what really went down on that plane.

...Lol, yeah, but where's the evidence? You're just musing.

Originally posted by Lanton

...Lol, yeah, but where's the evidence? You're just musing.

I hope you will at least read the thread if you want to comment...
your previous post still has most of us guessing which thread you think you are posting on...
the points you made so far, sound more like an attempt to cause confusion than intellegent debate...

If you would like to add to the discussion, maybe telling us what you think about the "3 minutes of missing tape" might inspire some of us to take you seriously...

I didn't have a "theory" before I researched 911. The data I pulled together and presented here is the data that exists. It got "pulled together" on September 11, 2001. I didn't make it. And I didn't suspect I was going to find it, or think that this had happened before I researched it.

You're way off base. But with that established!!!

It's an important area of research that has been lacking on this board, and I'm glad to see it being pursued. If you are not glad to see it pursued, I would suggest - this is NOT the thread to be hanging on. Because it looks to me like it's going to continue to be pursued.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

Originally posted by Lanton

...Lol, yeah, but where's the evidence? You're just musing.

I hope you will at least read the thread if you want to comment...
your previous post still has most of us guessing which thread you think you are posting on...
the points you made so far, sound more like an attempt to cause confusion than intellegent debate...

If you would like to add to the discussion, maybe telling us what you think about the "3 minutes of missing tape" might inspire some of us to take you seriously...

Aviation experts said there could be several explanations for the gap.

They said it could mean that the FBI and other government agencies either failed to properly synchronize the times, or there were other problems in the retrieving or handling of the tape from the so-called "black box" recovered from the wreckage at Shanksville, Pa.

Or, experts speculated, it could mean there was a major on-board electrical failure on the plane three minutes before Flight 93 crashed, causing the recorder to quit working.

But of course, if you're one to believe in a government-orchestrated 9/11 then you're gonna stick with the 3 minutes of missing tape being the smoking gun.

Originally posted by Valhall
I didn't have a "theory" before I researched 911. The data I pulled together and presented here is the data that exists. It got "pulled together" on September 11, 2001. I didn't make it. And I didn't suspect I was going to find it, or think that this had happened before I researched it.

You're way off base. But with that established!!!

It's an important area of research that has been lacking on this board, and I'm glad to see it being pursued. If you are not glad to see it pursued, I would suggest - this is NOT the thread to be hanging on. Because it looks to me like it's going to continue to be pursued.

It's going to continue to be pursued by conspiracy theorists...doesn't mean there's a grain of truth to the 'Flight 93 shot down' theory though.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts...and there're are lots of fabricated 'facts' floating around this thread from people who desperately want to believe that the flight was shot down.

Originally posted by Lanton

Aviation experts said there could be several explanations for the gap.

They said it could mean that the FBI and other government agencies either failed to properly synchronize the times, or there were other problems in the retrieving or handling of the tape from the so-called "black box" recovered from the wreckage at Shanksville, Pa.

Or, experts speculated, it could mean there was a major on-board electrical failure on the plane three minutes before Flight 93 crashed, causing the recorder to quit working.

Possibilities they suggested:

_ The FBI could have bungled this part of the investigation by failing to synchronize the time stamp of clocks onboard Flight 93 - which could have been set wrong - with air traffic control tapes and other tones that make it possible to determine the exact, correct times. Such a mistake would mean that the tape really did run until the impact, but that all the times given to the relatives on the transcript were off by three minutes.

Investigators typically nail down the correct times very early in a probe, experts said. Todd Curtis, who runs the Web site AirSafe.com, said the three-minute gap "does not make sense."

"From what I have heard about the flight's CVR [cockpit voice recorder], there was at least one transmission from the cockpit to air traffic control that would have been captured by the ATC tapes," Curtis said. "Those tapes should also have some kind of time reference." (From previously cited Philadelphia Daily News source, Author William Bunch

There's nothing they could have done to "bungle the tape" while recovering it.

And your last statement about a "major onboard electrical failure" proves you haven't read the thread yet. Because that's a major point in what I'm talking about. All of a sudden, apparently at 10:03 or there abouts...there was a major electrical failure. The plane didn't crash for 3 more minutes...but it's convenient that no cell phone communication or voice recorder information is available for the last 3 minutes.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Lanton


...and there're are lots of fabricated 'facts' floating around this thread from people who desperately want to believe that the flight was shot down.

Okay, back this statement.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]

Lanton:

a quick question for you, do you work for the military industrial complex in anyway? I noticed that you made threads in the past showing a good knowledge of what is going on.

your comments are valid but they just seem to restate what the officials have already said from what I can tell. What do you think happened in those events, I am curious?

There are plenty of aircrash incidents where they've never even recovered the black boxes, where the recordings on the voice black box have been compromised or where investigators have heard strange and unexplained noises on voice recorders.

Your point seems to be that because of the three mins gap then something conspiratorial must have ocurred; that's a great leap of deduction, no?

For all we know, perhaps in the last three minutes of the flight, the hijackers killed the pilots, if they hadn't already killed them, or there was a tussle between the hijackers and the passengers. Perhaps, out of respect for the families of the crew and passengers, that 3 minute gap was created. It's not the first time that sort of thing has happened.


[edit on 23-3-2006 by Lanton]

Originally posted by Lanton

Your point seems to be that because of the three mins gap then something conspiratorial must have ocurred; that's a great leap of deduction, no?

My point is that is one data point that comes with other data points that something happened 3 minutes before the plane crashed that insinuates an event happened that disrupted the voice recorder, cell phones onboard the plane (actually we now have more info on that - the cell receiver on the tower), the power grid and the land line phone system. It also caused a blip transmission on a transponder that had been off for about half an hour. Then three minutes later the plane drilled in the ground. And was identified by a C130-H that took off 8 minutes after a national ground stop had been called, continued on after an FAA call to land at the nearest airport, and didn't clear the radar after NORAD called battle stations fully armed. A C130-H whose report was classified from the Pentagon and completely unknown for weeks during the greatest investigation that has ever taken place in this country.

Yeah - I'm insinuating it looks like this plane was taken down and that an EC130-H was involved, and that some type of EMP device was deployed.

That's what I think it looks like.

The debris pattern is not consistant with a shoot down. An eye witness at the junkyard saw an intact plane impact the ground. It wasn't a shoot down and NOTHING like evidence supports it.

Do you prefer Alcoa or Reynolds for your headgear?

What's your evidence for the EC-130H theory?

I don't think this is the biggest conspiracy about 9/11.

I do agree the plane was shot down. Don't know if anyone else said this already, good old Rumsfeld admitted TWICE (or slipped up, I guess) that they shot the plane down. You don't see them admitting anything else about 9/11.

I don't see how this confirms the official story. It's just another lie, and with Rumsfeld we have them by the balls on this one. I think that's why the truth movement doesn't really focus on flight 93; if they admitted that they blew up the towers, do you think this forum would be as full of threads as it is?

Originally posted by Lanton
What's your evidence for the EC-130H theory?

I already presented it. Read the thread.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I don't think this is the biggest conspiracy about 9/11.

I do agree the plane was shot down. Don't know if anyone else said this already, good old Rumsfeld admitted TWICE (or slipped up, I guess) that they shot the plane down. You don't see them admitting anything else about 9/11.

I don't see how this confirms the official story. It's just another lie, and with Rumsfeld we have them by the balls on this one. I think that's why the truth movement doesn't really focus on flight 93; if they admitted that they blew up the towers, do you think this forum would be as full of threads as it is?

What nonsense. Public speakers are making snaffu's in speeches all the time; Bush has perfected the art of dicking his speeches up.

Originally posted by esdad71
Steely Eyes- Unless you have shot down a commerical airliner, please send me a link with some pictures refering to what the debris field would look like? also, I use tin foil to cook....

Common sense tells us that if debris is falling over a 8 mile stretch, something caused it, right?

lanton- read the thread, and the posted link. how much easier can we make it.

truthseeka- we know this is blow to your CI-qeada theories, but thanks for the post anyways

There's no posted link that shows from where Valhall got the idea that it was an EC-130H that forced the flight down, just a link describing what the platform is and what systems it's got on board.