Flight 93 Explained

One of the only reasons that we could do anything about 93 is that it took off 45 minutes late. Look into Cheney, Mineta and the stand down order. The conflict comes into play because 93 was shot down, and after the fact it seems as if an attempt by passengers was made. Instead of revealing that they shot it down, allow the attempt to show them as heroes, and the nation needed it after 9/11. Let's Roll was trademarked.

Eventually it will be seen that Loose Change and the other debunkers are paid by the government trying to give a big red herring to chase and leave 93 alone.

i have seen the news footage and some of the pictures and can't wrap my mind around the amount of (or lack thereof) devastation that this 757-200 was supposed to have caused.

an MK airlines 747 cargo transport crashed off the runway at Hfx Int airport in 2004. that was a real mess and it only bounced off the runway and into the woods on takeoff.

i'm sorry i can't show the pics i have because i can't figure out this linking thing lol. i will eventually.

when i compare the flight 93 pics with the MK ones i find it hard to believe a 757 crashed due to the lack of devastation.

can anyone explain how a 757 crashing from altitude makes less of a mess than a fully loaded 747 cargo does just bouncing off a runway at takeoff?

i know this may be a lame comparison considering how many different factors have to be considered but i have seen smaller plane crashes cause more damage and there just seems to be a lack of every kind of evidence that would point to a big a$$ plane crashing in that area from what i have seen(news footage,eye-witness accounts etc...).

i'm just throwing my 2 cents into the mix having worked the MK 747 crash site supporting the crash investigation team and seeing(with my own eyes) the mess a large plane crash can cause.

Because the 747 and other crashes were trying NOT to crash, and slammed down in a position that allowed the debris to be thrown all around the impact area, causing more damage and fires. Flight 93 went straight down into soft ground, which is going to confine the debris field, with the exception of some things like papers, insulation, and a few other things, to a fairly small area. As I said I've seen accident reports where the first thing everyone that got to the scene said was "Where's the airplane?"

Originally posted by esdad71
One of the only reasons that we could do anything about 93 is that it took off 45 minutes late. Look into Cheney, Mineta and the stand down order. The conflict comes into play because 93 was shot down, and after the fact it seems as if an attempt by passengers was made. Instead of revealing that they shot it down, allow the attempt to show them as heroes, and the nation needed it after 9/11. Let's Roll was trademarked.

!!! This is the same logic that Nick says led them to fake the whole thing, but yet it could also be extracted along with a shoot-down of the real plane scenario, as well as with the heroes story we've been handed (of course). Three different ways to sow the same mythology, three different types of plausibility.

Eventually it will be seen that Loose Change and the other debunkers are paid by the government trying to give a big red herring to chase and leave 93 alone.

Hmm... they might just have even bigger fish to camouflage, but keep that basic premise in mind.

You have NO eyewitnesses, NO footage, NO pictures yet everyone accepts it as truth. That is what makes me laugh. Again, look in Mineta. He is a key to all of this. A conspiracy is 3 to 4 people making something happen and having the ability to get away with it.

Flight 93 is Cheney, Mineta, "mystery airman" and pilot. 4 people. However 100's of thousands of people all watched 9/11 unfold and are still stating it was reptilians. It is a true form of direction.

I have an admittedly crazy idea.

Maybe a group of Islamic terrorists hijacked a plane in conjunction with other hijackings that happened that day. And perhaps the passengers, realizing that the had been hijacked, had access to cell phones (fairly advanced technology, perhaps handed down by aliens...more on that later in another post) and learned that other planes that day had been deliberately flown into buildings. A group of brave souls (hypothetically speaking) may have hatched a plan to resume control of the plane through force. A educated guess would be that said hijackers may have ran the plane into the ground in an attempt to prevent the passengers from resuming control.

I know. It's too simple. It makes too much sense. It doesn't villify Bush (and I'm no Bush fan.) The truth of what happened must be more convoluted, more unrealistic, more supportive of a conspiracy theory.

Please forgive my hubris.

I guess we are still on this subject.

nick said:
"You also must realize that the "shot down" theory means that the entire transcript of the CVR must have been faked.
"
indeed

I thought Rumsfelds remark about the shot down 93 closed more or less settled the fact that the offical story is bogus.

www.youtube.com...

The point being. When you know that they have been making up stories and creating evidence, you are lost in the woods, because without "official" backup you will never know which evidence belongs where. You can only see aht did not take place. In this case: no plane crashed in the Pentagon.

"the hijackers did it!"... and all these conspiracy theories are created because we can't handle the truth and we are making up this 'fantasy' that the US gov't had a hand in the attacks because it makes reality easiar for us crazy people...(/thanks fox news)

Well...there is a mountain. A giant pile of 'coincidences.' The crash/shoot down of flight 93 discussion = lack of evidence. Not our fault! It hasnt been released...alot...A TON of info has yet to be released...[just wait though]

Rumsfeld has publicly stated that the flight was 'shot down'...just mis speaking? I doubt it...really. If you were playing the role of big cheese in the US gov't and you had some BIG important meaningful job, even if you were EXTREMELY tired and had a lack of sleep the night before...would you say that the plane was SHOT DOWN!? that is quite a BIG DIFFERENCE! Thats like trying to order some seafood, but accidentally asking for a T-bone steak.

We have 'photographic' evidence that shows the airplane wreckage SCATTERED across a "5 mile radius" and a empty small dirt pit. MOST would agree that from the video/photos...it smells like a cover-up.

again, we dont have MUCH to go off of...(as far as 93 goes)

Originally posted by Pjotr
I guess we are still on this subject.

nick said:
"You also must realize that the "shot down" theory means that the entire transcript of the CVR must have been faked.
"
indeed

I thought Rumsfelds remark about the shot down 93 closed more or less settled the fact that the offical story is bogus.

www.youtube.com...

The point being. When you know that they have been making up stories and creating evidence, you are lost in the woods, because without "official" backup you will never know which evidence belongs where. You can only see aht did not take place. In this case: no plane crashed in the Pentagon.

Um, Shanksville, but good points anyway.

Good to bring up Rummy's Freudian slip--these moments should be given more weight. After all, he surely knows a lot more about what happened on 9/11 than anyone but Cheney. And he's half-mad anyway and is a raving egotist, it'd be just like him to make such a slip--unconsciously bragging.

I said earlier the evidence is intentionally sparse and obviously tricked, and so becomes a sort of Rorschach test in which you can see anything you want to see. The posts here confirm that.

I remember vividly that immediately after 9/11 there were several reports in the media about a shoot-down and cover-up. The reports of military planes in the area popped up immediately.

The purported phone conversations and the govt-sponsored mythologizing of "Flight 93" lends this version of events a good deal of credence and goes quite a long way to explain their unwillingness to let any real evidence leak out. It's just as damning to them but in a less overtly "conspiratorial" way.

This indeed might be the one part of 9/11 where the "they let it happen" crowd is right on one level. Let the stooges take over the plane, then shoot it down. Certainly explains all the military aircraft in the area, and why they didn't let anyone get close to any debris. And it lends serious cred to the huge lies at the WTC and the Pentagon. Could well have been scripted along these lines.

Is there any evidence of serious debris falling away from the infamous hole? Or areas the govt cordoned off afterwards?

Ultimately, when you look at the result--having most people believing the official hero story, and the rest believing it was shot down--it's ultimately a win-win situation in terms of psy-ops. Either way, it shows bravery by the passengers or that they had the balls to do what needed to be done in at least one instance.


[edit on 21-5-2007 by gottago]

The is belief out there that flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins airport. I beleive all the passenger on it are stilll alive to date. They were most likely forced to sign every document relating to geovement secrets and threatend to be killed if they start talking. I know this is only assumptions but i wonder. BTW send me a u2u with your thoughts on this if you are intrested.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

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.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and input. You're right about the speculation having nothing but quicksand beneath it. However, when all you have to go on is what the government wants you to know, there is very little left but specualtion.

However, as I said before, I am certain that whatever did this...




Did not create a mushroom cloud that looked like this...





...especially since I know that this photo isn't legit...





And I have to respectfully disagree with your thought that FL 93 is a waste of time, mainly because this is the one crash that the general public, and even right-wing media hosts believe the government may be hiding something. Therefore, this is the one area that a lot of people may be most open-minded to looking at the evidence.

Even if people can be convinced the FL 93 was shot down, it will open up a can of worms that could lead to much more.

Originally posted by TheOnlySaneOne
I have an admittedly crazy idea.
And perhaps the passengers, realizing that the had been hijacked, had access to cell phones .

I fly quite frequently and have never in my life been able to use a cell phone on an airplane. I'm sure it has something to do with altitude, but If anyone has been successful with using a cell, on an airplane I'd like to hear about it

I haven't personally, but I've been flying interisland and heard a cell phone ring. I know there are people that WERE on ATS that have used them on planes before. Sorry don't remember who, or if they're still around though. I just remember reading their posts that they had used them to call someone.

Well, it was the first and only time in history where passengers have attempted to regain control of a hijacked airliner.

If it was shot down, who did it? With all the failures in defense that day, surely that would be paraded as a victory for the Air Force, in stopping the terrorists reaching their target?

If it is correct that Silverstein managed to get 2x insurance payouts for the WTC in light of each being a seperate terrorist incident, then any shoot-down of Flight 93 must also be considered a seperate (albeit simultaneous) terrorist attack?? This only adds mystery to the quiet surrounding any shoot-down by the Air Force.

If it crashed, where is the debris? There should be about 140,000 lbs of it somewhere. Did anyone actually see it?

Where is the photo of the alleged engine in crater during excavation? I'd like to have another look at it.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Where is the photo of the alleged engine in crater during excavation? I'd like to have another look at it.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I think this is the photo you're looking for: