Let's speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93?

the only phone calls i've heard of is from flights 93 and 77...not all four flights.....please link me to mentioning of calls from the other two..

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Not sure what your theroy is on what happened on 911?

This thread is about what happened to the passengers on these flights. So my theory is , our own government sent planes into these buildings by remote control. i base this theory on the governments own plans of false flag ops. drafted back in the sixties. As far as flight 93, i believe that was the only plane that had passengers and that they didn't have any clue that they where about to be shot down. as far as the hole in the field. I find it very suspicious that there was nothing left of the plane. There are to many conflicting things about that. First you have an eye witness stating there was a military plane following this plane, and it went over some tree's Then suddenly there was an explosion. And the land that the hole was on belongs to someone that works for the government. Don't you find it suspicious that the callers on the supposed cell calls are talking to there loved ones and saying there full name and asking things like, you do believe me ? right ? And the probability of cell phone calls connecting are extremely rare.There are to many inconsistancies and not enough logical answers.So ill just stick to the topic of what happened to these so-called passengers until i get the real answers.

You asked me what my theory was, well there is part of it. sticking to the original thread. And my father was a military man. The day it happened his first response was, There is no way That al-kada could have pulled that off. And if you knew my father then you would understand where im coming from.He is one of the smartest men ive ever known. And we have discussed this for along time and we both agree on most of what is being said by the "tinfoilers" as most would call them. The only difference is he would never come to a sight on the net and try to debate this with anyone because he knows just like i know, It wont make a difference in the outcome . People are set in there beliefs and It becomes a mud slinging debate. But unlike him, I still have an open mind and welcome all to enlighten me with some educational and convincing proof if it is out there.

Thank you again and please play nice.

I find it very suspicious that wreckages weren't found in other aviation crash sites... the government killed those people too purposefully even though nothing really happened afterwards except for an on-going investigations to find out why the crash happened?

This government is out of control senselessly killing passengers. (Sarcasm)

Shattered OUT...

all of these people agree they saw a plane crash where flight 93 crashed....i dont know...but sounds like government plants....

www.flight93crash.com...


also about the engine being so far away....somebody either in this thread or another similar to it posted a link to the details of a crash that had the engine found blocks away..(i dont remember the specific number)...and it happened inside some city....let me look around i'll be back for it...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I find it very suspicious that wreckages weren't found in other aviation crash sites... the government killed those people too purposefully even though nothing really happened afterwards except for an on-going investigations to find out why the crash happened?

This government is out of control senselessly killing passengers. (Sarcasm)

Shattered OUT...

I can give you a great reason why they would shoot it down.They needed a hero story saying that these brave passengers stopped the hijackers from putting the plane into another building. First of all, a pilot would never tell the passengers that there where planes crashed into buildings and that was going to be there fate. and the cell phone calls where so phony i cant believe that either. So my reasoning is just different from yours i guess. But hey, thats what makes the world go round. And sarcasm is not a good way to debate something. that will just make some people not pay attention to what you have to say.Remember the title of this thread." lets speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93. What i would like to see is all who thing terrorist did this. speculate on how they pulled it off. And why our government let it happen.

Originally posted by russ1969
First of all, a pilot would never tell the passengers that there where planes crashed into buildings and that was going to be there fate. and the cell phone calls where so phony i cant believe that either.

Well, If I remember correctly, they used the on board phones, rather than cellphones, which kind of make cellphone reception a mute point.

What i would like to see is all who thing terrorist did this. speculate on how they pulled it off. And why our government let it happen.

Well, how terrorists pulled it off is the official explanation anyway, so I can't see why I would need to state it. And why the government let it happen? They practically let Pearl Harbour happen.

Originally posted by russ1969
I can give you a great reason why they would shoot it down.They needed a hero story saying that these brave passengers stopped the hijackers from putting the plane into another building. First of all, a pilot would never tell the passengers that there where planes crashed into buildings and that was going to be there fate. and the cell phone calls where so phony i cant believe that either. So my reasoning is just different from yours i guess. But hey, thats what makes the world go round. And sarcasm is not a good way to debate something. that will just make some people not pay attention to what you have to say.Remember the title of this thread." lets speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93. What i would like to see is all who thing terrorist did this. speculate on how they pulled it off. And why our government let it happen.

How do you know what a pilot can and cannot do or will not do? What experience do you have in the commercial aviation industry and what ideas and what experiences do you have with Airline regulations?

Well russ that little idea of yours is just that, you're idea of a reason (no matter how outlandish it is is; and pointless) of why the government would kill off citizens. There just has not been enough evidence in my eyes to prove that or any other reason of why United 93 would have been shot down. It makes less sense to me than the towers collapsing.

I wasn't debating anyone, there isn't much left to debate here. Don't lecture me on what people will read and won't read because I've been posting here for several years and have come to the conclusion that people will read your post no matter what, someone out there will read it and pay attention.

Shattered OUT...

Well there you go. If you have it all figured out then why do you continue to debate. I am giving possible scenario's (speculation on what happened). I never once said this was fact. But yet you still continue to state that what you are saying is fact and all who dont agree is wrong. And Dont think that the time you have been posting on ats has any relevance. I try to use common sense, And i will say this, I dont believe the official story and i do not trust anything our government tells me. So That is my reasoning behind this speculative post. So dont try to twist what i am saying and make it sound like i am stating fact.So i will say this also, You give me sarcasm I will ignore all you have to say. Give me some educational answers and i will debate The points that i dont agree with. But dont bother, because i find that this is counter productive debating this point with you. This subject cant go anywhere else at the moment because there needs to be some independent and bias research done before it can continue. So good luck all, Hope we see some results in the near future.Thank you.

What happened to the passengers of Flight 93...hmmm, they died when the plane they were on slammed into the ground near Shanksville, PA at 400-500 mph.

Now...onto the other posts....

And also if flight 93 is the only plane that was shot down , then why didnt the other planes get shot down.

So, Russ, what is your experience in intercepting hostile aircraft? First off, Flight 93 did not get shot down, it crashed. Second, the others werent shot down because they happened faster than we could react back then. At the time, we had a total of 14 aircraft in the continental US for air defense. Very few, if any, carried air to air missiles, leaving only the cannon for combat. In addition, in the confusion, the two jets that had the best chance of downing Flight 93, werent given the information they needed, so they followed standard ADIZ intercept procedure and were orbiting over the ocean waiting for vectors to the 'target'

What about the other flights that crashed into buildings? do you have anything that shows them families? And showing just a couple of people saying they lost someone on them flights is not proof. I want to see Something that shows a majority of victims families Talking about there losses

Have you not paid attention over the last six years? Plenty of the families HAVE made public statements. However, if YOU were a member of one of the families, would you really want to tell your story just to make a conspiracy theorist feel better?

it has been proven that cell phone connections are rare from an airplane.

It has huh? By who? How extensive were their tests? Every altitude? Over rural or urban areas? By the way, connections over rural areas are easier because repeaters are much farther apart which helps cut down on "hand over" interruptions.

and the cockpit voice recorder supposedly recorded the passengers . It does not pick up voices outside the cockpit

First off, depending on the aircraft and the set up of the recorder, some CAN record voices outside the cockpit. Second off, the only time Flight 93's recorder picked up passenger voices was around the time that investigators believe that the passengers breached the cockpit door.

And another fact is that in the history of all plane crashes, the only time the recorders are not found is when they lay on the bottom of the ocean and cannot be retrieved because they are to deep. But amazingly they didnt recover any of the other recorders due to what they claim. they melted in the fires that is just insane for anyone to believe. Flight recorders and data recorders are made from the strongest metals known to man.

Not quite, do some research because flight recorders ARENT always recovered. Even when they are recovered they are not always intact. Flight 93's recorders were recovered and what data that could be extracted, was. For the WTC flights, the recorders were subjected to much greater forces than they were designed to survive.

it shows bin laden signing a paper with his right hand and also he was wearing a gold ring on his finger.It is in official documentation that he is left handed and wearing a gold ring is forbidden by islamic law.

And you know he isnt ambidextrous? and that the ring is GOLD? and not another metal?

And i see that there was no reason for bin laden to attack us on our soil.

Oops forget the ring question, because this post shows you know NOTHING about Osama.

So please once again. show me something that is at the least decent proof of the passengers on these other flights. please.

Like what? You think all the people who were witnessed to have boarded those aircraft all decided to move to Tahiti?

I find it very suspicious that there was nothing left of the plane.

Umm there was wreckage left......

Don't you find it suspicious that the callers on the supposed cell calls are talking to there loved ones and saying there full name and asking things like, you do believe me ?

ONE passenger gave his full name, Mark Bingham. And his family and friends have come forward and said that that was the way he talked on the phone.

And my father was a military man. The day it happened his first response was, There is no way That al-kada could have pulled that off.

Funny, im still in the military and my FIRST reaction that day was Al Qaeda.

I can give you a great reason why they would shoot it down.They needed a hero story saying that these brave passengers stopped the hijackers from putting the plane into another building. First of all, a pilot would never tell the passengers that there where planes crashed into buildings and that was going to be there fate.

The pilots were not the ones that told the passengers what was going on. It was the passengers families who told their loved ones what was going on that day. Upon hearing the news that Flight 93 had crashed into a field, my first reactions were either the pilots did that themselves upon being attacked by the hijackers or that there had been an attempt to retake the airliner.

What i would like to see is all who thing terrorist did this. speculate on how they pulled it off. And why our government let it happen.

The government did NOT let it happen. Osama and KSM took the time to figure out our weaknesses and used them against us.

Originally posted by russ1969
Well there you go. If you have it all figured out then why do you continue to debate. I am giving possible scenario's (speculation on what happened). I never once said this was fact. But yet you still continue to state that what you are saying is fact and all who dont agree is wrong. And Dont think that the time you have been posting on ats has any relevance. I try to use common sense, And i will say this, I dont believe the official story and i do not trust anything our government tells me. So That is my reasoning behind this speculative post. So dont try to twist what i am saying and make it sound like i am stating fact.So i will say this also, You give me sarcasm I will ignore all you have to say. Give me some educational answers and i will debate The points that i dont agree with. But dont bother, because i find that this is counter productive debating this point with you. This subject cant go anywhere else at the moment because there needs to be some independent and bias research done before it can continue. So good luck all, Hope we see some results in the near future.Thank you.

No no my friend, I never said I was right and what I say is fact, I merely said what you state is wrong.

Shattered OUT...

and that proves my point. speculation on all of our points. none of witch can be verified based on all the conflicting data and reports. So we can all agree that is true i would think. But most likely that wont be the case. all the inserts of my post where picked apart and answered with more speculation, not proven fact. And the main point ive been saying is that the op is asking for speculation on what happened. I dont agree that all that is said is true, but i can just make my own opinion on the reports and data and especially the sources they come from. So all i am doing is keeping an open mind to what is false reporting and what is real. to hard to determine at the moment, but i feel there may be some disclosure in the future. It is unfortunate that all thats out there to look at can be told in two or three different ways. that just leads to more confusion than its worth. Sounds like a good way to hide the truth to me.

I like to go with the facts that have been officially stated and I like to see sufficient proof put forward on the heretical side. This way if in my mind I find that there is enough truth to what the heretical side is saying, then yeah I'll go with that as truth.

However, more than not I find that the Heretical side is filled with just as much BS as the side they claim is spewing BS.

My point is that there is a lot of BS out there and people, a lot of people are constantly out there to screw with anyone who is willing to listen. I'm trying my hardest not to be put into that situation so I will be very skeptical. I do try to be open minded though. In this thread I have not seen sufficient evidence put forward to theorize that United 93 was shot down.

I'll be hard to turn because I do in fact have exposure to the Aviation Industry and have some idea of what goes on. I also like to look at the history of what's being put under the microscope and then apply other events to try to kill those "It's impossible for this to happen" statements. I believe that the two crash sites do fall within the realm of plausibility and I do not at all see the fact that very little debris was left over from the points of impact to be highly suspect. Despite the heretical argument, it just wasn't enough for me.

Don't get me wrong it was well structured and I could definitely understand where you guys are coming from and why you would think the way you do, but there needs to be skeptics on both sides because not everything is the way it seems.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The government did NOT let it happen. Osama and KSM took the time to figure out our weaknesses and used them against us.

The government had plenty of warnings of the attacks. Please check out these facts.

www.ctstudies.com...

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings
U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings….(Reuters, 10 Feb 05)

[edit on 14-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The government had plenty of warnings of the attacks. Please check out these facts.

www.ctstudies.com...

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
terrorist threat
terror alerts
airline hijackings and suicide operations
Potential Attacks

[edit on 14-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

www.fas.org...

Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors.

that's from '95ish...there's always a terrorist threat....there's always warnings.....they strike at "random"..(i use that word loosley)

tho i dont know for sure...all presidents are prolly briefed on the most dangerous country...or person known at the time....prolly so some intelligence guy can C.H.A.....

does that exscuse them from not doing anything....no...and the white house prolly said..."we didnt recieve any warnings"...because ignorance always looks better than incompetence.....

tho they may have meant..."we did not recieve any warnings that suggested the scale of 9-11"




scattered....are you a USAF PJ?

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
that's from '95ish...there's always a terrorist threat....there's always warnings.....they strike at "random"..(i use that word loosley)

tho i dont know for sure...all presidents are prolly briefed on the most dangerous country...or person known at the time....prolly so some intelligence guy can C.H.A.....

does that exscuse them from not doing anything....no...and the white house prolly said..."we didnt recieve any warnings"...because ignorance always looks better than incompetence.....

tho they may have meant..."we did not recieve any warnings that suggested the scale of 9-11"
scattered....are you a USAF PJ?

NO, if you look at the examples i posted they are recent and very specific threats that should have been taken more serious.

Just like all the other threats that the government has received?

If the government took every little threat seriously we'd probably be under martial-law or in a fascist state. It's impossible to predict which ones are real.

I'm sure many threats that are never carried out can do just as enough damage as the 9/11 attacks.

Shattered OUT...

out of all the warnings you posted not one said what they were going to do....not one mentioned flying them into buildings...and not one mentioned a specific time frame....so it's not like the government knew that 9-11 would happen to that scale....maybe they had an idea that planes were going to be hijacked.....but with the "suicide operations" one...prolly thought they were going to blow up the airplane...or an airport...

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
out of all the warnings you posted not one said what they were going to do....not one mentioned flying them into buildings...and not one mentioned a specific time frame....so it's not like the government knew that 9-11 would happen to that scale....maybe they had an idea that planes were going to be hijacked.....but with the "suicide operations" one...prolly thought they were going to blow up the airplane...or an airport...

Oh, but we have a lot more information then just those few i posted. We also have FAA whistleblowers.

www.ctstudies.com...

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

www.globalsecurity.org...

Then the terrorists attacked on September 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. Immediately afterwards, numerous government officials from FAA as well as other government agencies made defensive statements such as, "How could we have known this was going to happen?" The truth is, they did know. What happened on 9-11 was not a failure in the system, it was a system designed for failure. FAA very conscientiously and deliberately orchestrated a dangerous façade of security, ignoring the laws cited above. They knew how vulnerable aviation security was. They knew the terrorist threat was rising, but gambled nothing would happen if we kept the vulnerability secret and didn't disrupt the airline industry. Our country lost that bet.

There are serious indications that the FAA deceived the public about what happened on 9-11. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, I was working in one of the FAA operations centers collecting information on details of what happened during the hijacking. We received information that a firearm was used on one of the hijacked aircraft. At the time I gave it little thought. If you are going to hijack an aircraft why not bring a firearm? I knew from working in the Red Team how easy it is to do. Several years earlier the FAA had canceled testing with firearms, after a national Red Team study found over two thirds made it past security.


In my case, about a month after 9-11, I filed a Whistleblower Disclosure against FAA with the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Last year the Special Counsel found a substantial likelihood I was right, and ordered Secretary Mineta to investigate. OSC flunked the agency's first draft report, which I had attacked as a cover-up. This past March, the OSC accepted a second report from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which concluded that, "…the Red Team was grossly mismanaged and that the result was the creation of substantial and specific danger to public safety…" in connection with 9-11. The Special Counsel still flunked the report as failing to meet legal requirements, however, because it failed to address accountability for confirmed wrongdoers.

Yep Ultima, and there are DOZENS of warnings EVERY WEEK. Short of shutting ALL air traffic down, you cannot defend against them all. Show me ONE warning that mentioned Flight 93, Flight 77 etc and an attack on 9-11-2001. There isnt one. Those warnings WERE vague. As I said, they took the time to analyze our weaknesses (you could carry short bladed knives etc...) and used them against us. Should we have fired anyone..no. Not until you can show that someone knew exactly what was coming and failed to do anything about it. It would have been just like firing Admiral Kimmel and General Short after Pearl Harbor. Looks good, makes politicians happy, but in the end, is meaningless.

airport security is weak and everybody knows it....so even if they did know...and did a full body cavity search on every single person that went thru....they wouldnt know....sure it's good for the economy....do you know how many people they'd have to hire to give everysingle person a cavity search?...niether do i but i'm sure it'd be quite a few...then everyone would protest the whole privacy thingy......


www.foxnews.com...

On Sept. 15, federal authorities received an e-mail from Heatwole saying he had "information regarding six security breaches" at the Raleigh-Durham and Baltimore-Washington airports between Feb. 7 and Sept. 14, according to an FBI affidavit.

he would have gotten away with it if it werent for those meddling kids....sorry i mean if he hadnt emailed the gov'ment to tell them he did it...