Flight 93 Explained

Originally posted by Rasputin13
My only question is this...

if the "government" was able to fly two commercial jets into the WTC towers, then why weren't they able to fly one into a remote field in Shanksville, PA? I just don't get why they would fly two (or 3 if you believe a 747 was really flown into the Pentagon) into buildings, but then go through all this trouble to simulate a plane crash in a field. Why secretly land the plane, hide the plane, have an A-10 drop/fire ordinance to create a crater, and then have a C-130 fly over and drop debris? I think that's an awful lot of trouble to go through just to create something that seems relatively easy to legitimately do in comparison to the other "crashes" that day.

I don't know the answer to your questions, but I could speculate. Based on your reasoning, maybe what really happened is more in line with the "They Let It Happen" scenario. Maybe the government had the intelligence that the WTC attacks were going to take place and let them happen. Then to make the attacks sufficient grounds for a war instead of just a run of the mill terrorist attack, maybe the Pentagon attack was staged, or maybe the terrorists actually were allowed to fly 30 minutes unimpeded into the Pentagon.

As for Flight 93, the most feasible explanation maybe that the government needed the "hero story" of FL 93 as the launching point for the counter-attack against the terrorists. When you go to the FL 93 memorial, the ambassadors are quick to point out that the war on terror started with the passengers of FL 93.

And while we're at it... wouldn't it be extremely risky that people would notice a military jet firing into a field and a military cargo/transport plane dropping debris from thousands of feet in the air, and possibly noticing a 747 passenger jet landing on their local airstrip? Just seems like a whole lot of risk to take to perform an extremely difficult mission for a reason that I'm not even sure exists.

Shanksville is in the middle of nowhere -very isolated. And people DID notice things other that what was described in the official story! That's the whole point!

Sue Mcelwain noticed a plane fitting the description of an A-10 Warthog flying 40 feet over her car seconds before the impact from the crash. People on the ground noticed the C-130, which the government finally admitted was there. People noticed that the Val McClatchey photo shows a smoke plume far too large and not lined up with the crash site. Three high school students witnessed military planes immediately after the crash. Residents near Indian Lake noticed the sound of a large airliner overhead even though FL 93's flight path didn't take it over Indian Lake.

Originally posted by GwionX
What would be the point of this elaborate production?

Just to "fake" something for the sake of "faking" something?

I see absolutely no reward for the risk involved. I see no benefit in any way.

Just a theory...

The point might have been to create the "passengers are heroes" myth on one level, and on the 2nd level to create the alternative theory that the plane was shot down. The "hero myth" was a very important psychological component of 9/11 that is still being used today. Without the story of FL 93 and the passengers as heroes, the day would have ended on 9/11 as a total victory for the terrorists. This would have created a far more demoralizing national mood.

The "plane was shot down" rumor might have been created just to make the general public believe the government was actually on top of things instead of grossly negligent on 9/11.

The flight 93 crash site is not that strange. It is what happens when a plane slams into the earth at a steep angle, and a high rate of speed.

No it's not. As much as your buddies at jref would like to spread this falsehood, it's simply not true. Here's what happens when a plane flips and crashes nose-first...


This is flight 427 that crashed nose-first near Pittsburgh:




I think this is the Denver crash...







Here's what the Valujet crash site looked like in the everglades when the plane crashed in the water:




This is what the crash site at FL 93 looked like:

Kenya air recently had a Boeing 737 go down. Here is an excerpt from an AP article about the nature of that crash site.

"The wreckage in the thick jungle indicated the plane flew nose-first into the ground at a nearly 90 degree angle. It was found buried deep in a crater of reddish-brown muck with only tiny bits of the rear fuselage and wings left above ground. Trees nearby were smashed, but otherwise the jungle canopy remains intact, making the site almost invisible from the air."

Link

Sound familiar? Is Kenya involved in this conspiracy too?

You failed to mention that the Kenya Air FL 507 crashed in a swamp, and you also failed to post the photos of the debris. Here they are:







Do those photos look anything like the FL 93 crash site?



You really should do your own research instead of just parroting the jref posts... just my opinion fwiw.

Nick, I am very aware of those two photos of the recent crash. I posted the article -- I have seen them. I am not just "parroting" as you say. You posted those two images to prove what? That there was a small piece of the fuselage and wheel visible at the crash site?

To compare 93 to other crashes is kinda like comparing the WTC buildings to the Madrid tower. --in that if a person was intenionally trying to plant a jet into the ground --the results would be different than a pilot doing everything in their power not to crash. And the Madrid tower had a concrete core that didn't fail due to fire (although the steel areas did) being compared to towers where steel was the primary core support and was damaged to the point of failure due to fire and damage from aircraft-- or in the case of WTC 7 fire and falling debris. The Combination of circumstances-- produces a very different final outcome.

I will compare it to a honda civic stalled on a railroad track-- when a train slams into it going full speed-- and compare that crash scene to a honda civic that sees a truck comming and attemps to avoid it --but still gets hit although not head-on. Both Hondas are totaled...But one gets towed away while the other is for the most part unidentifiable.

Ya know, flt 93 has always been a sad story. Why? Because everyone on that flight died prematurely. It wasn't some great victory. If our Government was so evil as to just kill all kinds of people on 9/11 without conscience, then why do you think they would go to great lenghts to stage some kind of feel good story. Hell, how could ANYONE know beforehand that a "feel good" story could even be extracted from something like this.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Rasputin13
if the "government" was able to fly two commercial jets into the WTC towers, then why weren't they able to fly one into a remote field in Shanksville, PA?

I don't know the answer to your questions, but I could speculate. [...] As for Flight 93, the most feasible explanation maybe that the government needed the "hero story" of FL 93 as the launching point for the counter-attack against the terrorists. When you go to the FL 93 memorial, the ambassadors are quick to point out that the war on terror started with the passengers of FL 93.

Very compelling points! But as your friend and past co-hort, Nick, I have to point out that this did not answer the question one bit. And to boot, I still don't buy your theory in any part, for the reasons Rasputin outlines plus others. I don't even have the energy to try arguing it, just putting in my two cents. In fact I'm baffled that a reasonable person would put this much energy into something with so little common sense without adequately explaining, as people keep asking, WHY? Good luck though on your continuing investigation.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

The enevnts that unfolded on 9/11 were bizzare in every way, Big planes causes a small well punched holes in one building and leaves no wreakage, at a nother loaction, 2 planes fly into 2 huge buildings and cause major damage, and the unprecidented collapse of 3 mordern steel skyscrapers. And even at another location we have a plane flay and hit the ground at such speed that all the wreackage is shot into the ground so it can't be see and small drebis from the crash gets thrown 8 miles away.

And thats just the wierd planes that were involved, what about Norad standing down, all the strange quotes of what people said, the calls not to fly to some people, just all the strangeness.

The fact is anythign could have happen, they could have slipped anythign by us, but the didn't need to slip it past us, thats what we need to realise, on that day all they had to do was spoon feed us info off the alphabet news nataions channels new report. We were on a feeding tube of disinfo from the moment it started, the first thing our president said was

"I saw the first plane hit, and i thought what a terrible tradegy" (something to that affect)

Something dire happen that day, to think it was all just uncoraberated randomness is just much, this was well corrdinated, and well acted through on at just about every level, the powers that be know how to play this game, and with modern technology they are getting even better at playing it, in ways we cant even imagine.

Just read through the entire thread.

Flight 93 is definitely off, just as every element of 9/11 is off.

Once you see one element as a lie--in my case, I find the preponderance of evidence showing incontrovertibly that the WTC towers and bldg 7 were demolished using unconventional means--then you had better examine all the other "stories" very closely.

Several naysayers ask, "Why go through all the trouble to fake the crash?"

Nick supplies some very good answers. 9/11 was a huge psy-op to drag us into the ME oil fields and push us closer to a police state. So extraordinary planning most certainly occurred. Very little--only the sloppy mess of WTC 7, IMO--was left to chance.

The psychological component is crucial; that is the definition of a psy-op, after all. The whole Beamer story, "Let's roll," stinks of cheap Hollywood. And those calls, what was the guy's name?--"Hi mom, this is Joe Blow, your son. You believe me mom, don't you?" Well that right there is pure BS.

So there was planted evidence, fakery, a convenient C-130 popping up like Where's Waldo? at every crash scene, mysterious white jets, withheld evidence, a crash site without tail sections, wings or engines. Security cordons and no NTSB report on the crash afterwards, etc, etc.

It all stinks.

They scripted all this "Wag the Dog" style but the evidence doesn't add up. Frankly there's very little of it, and what there is cuts thoroughly both ways.

Nick's theory is as solid as the official story, which is just as circumstantial.

Originally posted by GwionX
Ya know, flt 93 has always been a sad story. Why? Because everyone on that flight died prematurely. It wasn't some great victory. If our Government was so evil as to just kill all kinds of people on 9/11 without conscience, then why do you think they would go to great lenghts to stage some kind of feel good story. Hell, how could ANYONE know beforehand that a "feel good" story could even be extracted from something like this.

Good questions.

First, we have a history of the government "sacrificing" Americans for the "greater good." I believe that there was a recent book published that documented FDR's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, and the government's willingness to sacrifice Americans to justify going to war.

The reasons for the "feel good" story are many. First, let's be clear -it wasn't really a "feel good" story. It was more like a "Americans aren't going to put up with terrorists, we're going to fight back" story. What was peculiar to me was when on 9/11/01, John Murtha, for whom the evacuated control tower at Johnstown is named, declared the passengers as heroes within hours after the crash.

I also understand your point about comparing crash sites, buildings on fire, etc. There will always be a bit of comparing apples to oranges, but this is the best we can do with what we have. It really doesn't prove anything. The crash sites are what they are. I'm not say that it's a 100% certainty that no plane crashed in the crater at Shanksville. I'm saying the crash site also fits with other theories. In fact, the evidence at the crash site, combined with other evidence, seems to tell a different story than what the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Very compelling points! But as your friend and past co-hort, Nick, I have to point out that this did not answer the question one bit.

Sometimes I think people on forums like this fall into the trap of feeling like we should have answers for everything. The problem is that we only have access to a very small amount of information. There are things we know, things we don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know!

This means that any theorizing away from the official story is by definition going to include speculations about what we don't know. The reality of what happened can't be changed, and it might not even be able to be figured out later, depending on what evidence has been destroyed.

So I guess what I'm getting to is that not having all the answers to all the questions doesn't necessarily mean that a theory is not worth pursuing.

And to boot, I still don't buy your theory in any part, for the reasons Rasputin outlines plus others. I don't even have the energy to try arguing it, just putting in my two cents. In fact I'm baffled that a reasonable person would put this much energy into something with so little common sense without adequately explaining, as people keep asking, WHY? Good luck though on your continuing investigation.

I already explained a couple possible "why's". The most basic why could be that 9/11 was originally an AQ plan to fly 2 planes into WTC1 and WTC2. Rather than stop it, "they let it happen" for political and economic reasons. But rather than the attacks being simply on WTC1 and WTC2, there was a decision made to leverage the NY attacks into something much larger -an attack on the U.S. military headquarters.

IMO, there is no explanation for AQ to PLAN that the U.S. would allow Flight 77 to fly unimpeded for 30 minutes after the hijacking and dive into the Pentagon.

The last piece of the puzzle could have been the staging of FL 93 to complete the psyops needed to rally the American public into a "hero" frame of mind. Plus, the added psychological benefit to FL 93 would have been the "rumor" of the shoot down. I.e., the U.S. military can be counted on to protect us.

As for why I even bother with this, it's because I am certain that the Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume over the barns was doctored. And this isn't based on what I've read online, but on my own multiple trips to Shanksville. The FBI verified the authenticity of this photo twice (at least).

To me, that means that there is a conspiracy to mislead the public about what happened on 9/11. I am fortunate to have relatively easy access to Shanksville, and to have a forum of some of the most intelligent, analytical, and fair-minded people here at ATS to let know what I find.

So I'm not saying that I believe the theory that started this thread is the gospel truth. I'm saying that at least part of the official story is incorrect, and however improbable it may be, the theory I posted here fits the evidence that I know re Shanksville.

A good friend of mine is an Airplane mechanic for United airlines In San Francisco, and he said that its pretty well known amongst their employees that flight 93 was shot down. which makes me wonder, why the crater?? It seems contrived to me- even just the land as a "stage". it seems to be a pretty wooded area with a pretty sizeable, OPEN field? But, If the theory is right and flight 93 didnt crash, than why isnt united calling/called BS?? That plane is nowhere to be found, as well as retired on the official list. wouldnt there also have to be a huge blackmail operation to keep united quiet? sounds like alot of work for little result, work that could be acheived in simpler ways. and fewer people involved.

Because even if it WAS shot down, you're STILL going to have a debris field and an impact crater. It's not like movies where a plane gets hit by a missile and explodes into a ball of fire.

Originally posted by nick7261
IMO, there is no explanation for AQ to PLAN that the U.S. would allow Flight 77 to fly unimpeded for 30 minutes after the hijacking and dive into the Pentagon.

Because as I explained earlier, it was pretty well known among people that knew where to look that the alert force had been SEVERELY cut back. You could just go to somewhere overlooking the alert bases and SEE that they didn't have many, or in most cases ANY armed fighters waiting. And if you don't have any armed, the response time is cut back.

Talk about trying to make the facts fit the theory...

But I just have to ask, why?

Why fake the crash and hide the plane?

What about the passengers? Where are they?

This "theory" doesn't make any sense. Why go through all the trouble? What's the motivation? What was accomplished?

>
whoops... looks like the forum engine failed to generate the page 2 and 3 listing. Musta been a glitch. I see this has already been posed and answered.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by apc]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because even if it WAS shot down, you're STILL going to have a debris field and an impact crater. It's not like movies where a plane gets hit by a missile and explodes into a ball of fire.

If you noticed the debris fields of other crashes you will see that there are generally large pieces of the plane left above ground. I'm not sure that other than FL 93 I've ever seen an impact crater in which the entire plane was completely buried. Even the ValueJet crash in the everglades, which created large crater underwater, left debris scattered on the surface.

So IF the plane was shot down, one would expect more plane debris on the surface. Also, if the plane was shot down, then that means the entire CVR transcipt was faked.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by nick7261
IMO, there is no explanation for AQ to PLAN that the U.S. would allow Flight 77 to fly unimpeded for 30 minutes after the hijacking and dive into the Pentagon.

Because as I explained earlier, it was pretty well known among people that knew where to look that the alert force had been SEVERELY cut back. You could just go to somewhere overlooking the alert bases and SEE that they didn't have many, or in most cases ANY armed fighters waiting. And if you don't have any armed, the response time is cut back.

Your answer doesn't match the facts. It wasn't that there were NO armed fighters protecting Washington D.C. on 9/11, it was that the armed fighters that were there were sent out over the Atlantic is search of a phantom FL 11 that had already hit WTC1.

Further, it is my understanding that there were dozens of fighters involved in military exercises on 9/11.

How would al-Qaeda know that FL 77 wasn't going to be intercepted between Kentucky and Washington D.C.?

Originally posted by apc

But I just have to ask, why?

This "theory" doesn't make any sense. Why go through all the trouble? What's the motivation? What was accomplished?

The same questions you posed can be applied to the theory that al-Qaeda and OBL planned 9/11. Of course the answers, when applied to the AQ theory, are that OBL and Islamic facists are fundamentally insane and that normal standards of logic and reason do not apply to them.

But getting back to FL 93 specifically, why would terrorists-hijackers discuss putting the plane down in a field when it appeared the passengers were revolting? Why put the plane down before the passengers broke into the cockpit?

First of all, the fighters weren't launched from Andrews. The F-15s that were over NYC were launched from Cape Cod, which was the nearest base with armed fighters, and the F-16s that were over DC were from Langley VA. Andrews AFB wasn't standing alert anymore on 9/11. There were SEVEN bases that had armed fighters on 9/11. It had been that way for YEARS. And the Alert Force NEVER flies in an exercise. NEVER. They are ONLY for defense of the US, and before that day they were ONLY trained and looking OUTSIDE the country for threats.

The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, California; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas. www.af.mil...

www.prisonplanet.com...

There were plenty of bases in range of the planes, but only those 7 had fighters ready to scramble, and sitting armed at the end of the runway.

so much time , so much effort , so much thought , all for not .
if it was shot down , it was for the greater good , but i do not think it was .
why would the fbi let the family's of the people killed listen to the cp voice
recordings ? and according to them , they fought it down to the ground .
what's so wrong with them being heros and saving other lives be giving
their own . the only wrong i see is this " truth virus " and all their conspiracys.

Originally posted by gen.disaray
what's so wrong with them being heros and saving other lives be giving
their own . the only wrong i see is this " truth virus " and all their conspiracys.

Truth is only a virus in a world built out of lies.

There's a virus in the matrix -- if you're lucky it might infect you.

Observation/Question:

In these conspiracy discussions the government is portrayed as
a group of bungling morons by some, and given credit for master
minding attacks by other posters.. Sometimes within the same
thread.

WHICH ONE IS IT?

-cwm

Originally posted by nick7261

Sometimes I think people on forums like this fall into the trap of feeling like we should have answers for everything. The problem is that we only have access to a very small amount of information. There are things we know, things we don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know!

True enough, and the pull of mystery is compelling. Problem is there's quicksand under it, where speculation can be never-ending and increasingly frivolous. Of this we should be aware. You're free to pursue what you want, I'm just letting you know why I find it a relative waste of time to argue for or against such a construct. I was a bit blunt I suppose...

I already explained a couple possible "why's". The most basic why could be that 9/11 was originally an AQ plan to fly 2 planes into WTC1 and WTC2. Rather than stop it, "they let it happen" for political and economic reasons. But rather than the attacks being simply on WTC1 and WTC2, there was a decision made to leverage the NY attacks into something much larger -an attack on the U.S. military headquarters.

Sorry I missed that. So in this version, the first two planes were real an al qaeda piloted, and the other two tacked on by the domestic PTB. Hmmm... well, why not tack 93 on better? Why not scatter the debris AT the faked crsh site so you and Killtown couldn't cite the lack of debris there as proof that it was all (sloppily) staged? They were able to bury # there, why so far off on the air drop? Trying to fake a mid-air shootdown? Why not crash the real plane by remote control and just fake a handful of phone calls?

Oddly enough, in studying the phone record as a clue to whether RC was used or the hijackers were real, I found the abundance of (reported) phone calls made me think 93 was the most likely REAL hijacking, perhaps the only one of the morning, with the other three tacked on with RC to amplify the attack. By showing a terrorist presence clearly on 93, they could lend a sense of reality to the official story of the other flights. So in my own speculation land, I find the opposite of your theory more likely. Just another theory, it's crossed my mind but I haven't chosen to try to use it to "explain" anything. Too tentative, and too many other plausible explanations.

As for why I even bother with this, it's because I am certain that the Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume over the barns was doctored. And this isn't based on what I've read online, but on my own multiple trips to Shanksville. The FBI verified the authenticity of this photo twice (at least).

I'm still not convinced of that, but not so much for lack of good effort on your part as that I have limited time to really study it. It's quite possible and could have a number of purposes if so.

So I'm not saying that I believe the theory that started this thread is the gospel truth. I'm saying that at least part of the official story is incorrect, and however improbable it may be, the theory I posted here fits the evidence that I know re Shanksville.

Well i'm sure you know way more than me. I've chosen not to be on board with this leg of your studies, as I have to pick my battles and I'm not seeing the case for this one being worth it. But I will check out your posts, hopefully more carefully than I have so far, and if I see something wothwhile I will follow it. Peace.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]