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

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
absolute security is a joke...i believe i've linked you before to the 20 year old college student who over a 6-7month time frame managed to sneak weapons and such in baggies with notes on them onto nation wide flights...the only reason he was caught was cause he sent a letter to the gov'ment saying that he did it....if i havent i'll send it to you U2U...

that site also states that the government suspected terrorist list and the FAA's was extremely different....

But with all the warnings the FAA had received before 9/11 (i believe it was about 50) they should have been more alert and have more stringent security that day.

Also thier is no way any aircraft should have gotten near let alone into restricted airspace.

the FAA is still recieving threats today....and like we said before there were no threats that said anything more than possible plane hijacking and suicide bombings...which could mean...that a plane was going to be hijacked...or maybe a suicide bomber was going to go off at a terminal...

they could always consider this




yes it's a joke....but that's pretty much all the FAA coulda done...

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the FAA is still recieving threats today....and like we said before there were no threats that said anything more than possible plane hijacking and suicide bombings...which could mean...that a plane was going to be hijacked...or maybe a suicide bomber was going to go off at a terminal...

Maybe you did not see the threats and what stated, but their was enough threats with enough information that something should have been done.

Again, there is no way a plane should have gotten into restricted airspace. If NORAD was incompetent why was no one fired, instead they received promotions and awards.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you did not see the threats and what stated, but their was enough threats with enough information that something should have been done.

Again, there is no way a plane should have gotten into restricted airspace. If NORAD was incompetent why was no one fired, instead they received promotions and awards.

i found nothing about them getting promoted for what happened on 9-11...i found that a canadian recieved a medal for sep 11th

www.technetnorth.ca...

Lieutenant General E. A. Findley
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)
Awards and decorations include Commander in the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross for action taken during terrorist attacks of 11 Sep 01, Special Service Medal for duty in NATO, Peacekeeping Medals from UN missions in Central America and Haiti, the MFO medal for service in the peacekeeping mission in Egypt/Israel, the Canadian Peacekeeping Medal, and the Canadian Decoration.

and it's not like they can fire them on the spot...if the people claimed ignorance of incompetent, they'd recieve a reprimand...

and with only a non specific threat what could they do?...other than banning passengers, there's nothing they could have done....


911review.org...

The video shows an airport screener hand-checking the baggage of one hijacker, Nawaf al Hazmi, for traces of explosives before letting him continue onto american Airlines Flight 77 with his brother, Salem, a fellow hijacker

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
and it's not like they can fire them on the spot...if the people claimed ignorance of incompetent, they'd recieve a reprimand...

and with only a non specific threat what could they do?...other than banning passengers, there's nothing they could have done....

But if thier incompetence led to thousands of people deaths that would call for a dismissal.

Thier is a video around of the F-16 pilots getting a medal. 1 of the pilots gets 2 medals. I wil have to see if i can find it

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But if thier incompetence led to thousands of people deaths that would call for a dismissal.

Thier is a video around of the F-16 pilots getting a medal. 1 of the pilots gets 2 medals. I wil have to see if i can find it

the f-16 pilots were not part of NORAD...they were from langley...norad would have to go through their base command and then it'd have to go to the fighters...causing a small delay....

and then they'd have to get a request from the faa.....


www.cbc.ca...

FAA headquarters officials were supposed to notify the military but staff members there were recorded dithering about the hijacked United flight.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: They're pulling Jeff away to talk about United 93.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, God, I don't know.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.

Apparently, there was only one person at FAA headquarters who was authorized to call in the military. Ben Sliney was told that no one could find that person, "I said something like that's incredible. There's only one person. There must be someone designated or someone who will assume the responsibility of issuing an order, you know. We were becoming frustrated in our attempts to get some information. What was the military response?"

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the f-16 pilots were not part of NORAD...they were from langley...norad would have to go through their base command and then it'd have to go to the fighters...causing a small delay....

and then they'd have to get a request from the faa.....

You are forgetting the F-16s that were sent up by the Secret Sevice to portect the capital and whitehouse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You are forgetting the F-16s that were sent up by the Secret Sevice to portect the capital and whitehouse.

the one quote i found about secret service is that one pilot in an unloaded f-16 was given the shoot down order via the ss....he said if he saw a hijacked aircraft he was going to ram it....

about near the bottom

There is one pilot who received a shoot-down order, but he was not in a position to execute it. Marc Sasseville flies out of Andrews Air Force Base, just a few kilometres from the White House. He received the order not through the proper military channels, but directly from the Secret Service in the White House bunker with the Vice President. Desperate to get some protection over Washington, he took off in the only jet available, which was unarmed. If he encountered a hijacked aircraft, his plan was to ram it with his F-16 and try to eject at the last minute. "Well, I would have one hand on the stick and one hand on the ejection handle and, hopefully, I could play it right to get out after I hit the airplane. Basically, I would try and swing my wing into his and knock the engine pod off, or cut the wing if I could get going fast enough. And I would use my fuselage to do that, but pretty soon after that my aerodynamics capabilities would be destroyed and then, if I could have ejected, I would have."

To those who say the distance of the engines from the crash site is impossible with a normal crash:

A 757 in 2002, crashed after colliding in midair with another aircraft. It then:

struggled for a further seven kilometres (4.3 miles) before crashing into a wooded area close to the village of Taisersdorf at a 70 degree downward angle; each engine ended up several hundred metres away from the main wreckage.

Sound familiar?

Source: wiki

Originally posted by apex
To those who say the distance of the engines from the crash site is impossible with a normal crash:

A 757 in 2002, crashed after colliding in midair with another aircraft. It then:

Did this 757 go straight into the ground or did it hit the ground on the body ?

the link he posted says at a 70* downward angle....

not to aggravate or poke fun at you but normally you catch this stuff...and i've seen you post some pretty smart things....

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the link he posted says at a 70* downward angle....

not to aggravate or poke fun at you but normally you catch this stuff...and i've seen you post some pretty smart things....

OOPS,, my bad, i did not catch the link. Will check it out.

And do not worry about aggravating or poking fun, i have been called evey name and insulted to no end on other forums for trying to find facts instead of going along with the official story.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the link he posted says at a 70* downward angle....

The 70 degree angle, well I don't think I've ever seen anything stating an exact angle for UA93's impact, so I mentioned it. Anyway it was mostly because most of the time the argument seems to be, if it can happen elsewhere, give an example.

If there is anything saying UA93 went down at a steeper angle, rather than just a witness saying it went down fast and steep behind the trees, then this may not be that relevant.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The most striking thing is that virtually every single aspect of 911 is virtually impossible to make concrete sense of, .....

I don't see anything "insane" about the issues or having proof to support certain position. Kerosene fires, especially those at the WTC can not melt steel.

It is _not possible_ for that jet to have crashed into the Pentagon and not left more _evidence_.

It is _not possible_ for that jet to have punched those holes in the Pentagon.

Flight 93 ? Say it with me, it is _not possible_ that Flight 93 simply crashed at the government claims.

It is _not possible_ that the laws of science ceased to exist on 9/11.

What the government claims can not be true. The rest of us are left to make the best guess we can.

Originally posted by discomfit
Flight 93 ? Say it with me, it is _not possible_ that Flight 93 simply crashed at the government claims.

It is _not possible_ that the laws of science ceased to exist on 9/11.

Come on, lets have an actual explanation as to why it didn't crash as the government claims.

Tell me, what is your area of knowledge to back up the claim that UA93 didn't hit a field in Pennsylvania?

Originally posted by apex
Tell me, what is your area of knowledge to back up the claim that UA93 didn't hit a field in Pennsylvania?

I am not claiming that Flight 93 _didn't_ "hit a field in Pennsylvania". I am claiming that it did not and _could not_ have happened the government and mass media has led us to believe.

My understanding is this jet had a very long debris field indicating it started to "come apart" while in the air.



Any story that doesn't include Flight 93 "coming apart" in the air can not be true.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

...

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues.

source

We now have report that an F-16 did actually catch Flight 93. That goes against the statement of the official story that the fighters were too late to catch any of the 9/11 airliners.

Daily Defense News

June 06, 2002

HEADLINES:
NASHUA TELEGRAPH -- Air traffic controllers also
said that at least one F-16 fighter was in hot
pursuit of the third hijacked airliner before it
crashed in Pennsylvania. The controllers said that
at one point the F-16 made 360-degree turns to
stay close to the slower moving commercial
jetliner.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

f-16's dont have to do 360's in order to intercept large aircraft...they can cruise right along beside it.....i've seen it....


www.highironillustrations.com...
f-16 cruising speed Cruising speed – 575 mph


www.airliners.net...
www.unit-conversion.info...
767 cruising speed 461kts=530mph


p.s. can we get a link??

[edit on 27-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
f-16's dont have to do 360's in order to intercept large aircraft...they can cruise right along beside it.....i've seen it....

My original quote was from a government document, but here is a internet version.

www.investigate911.com...

Controllers have also learned that an F-16 fighter closely pursued hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 until it crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
My original quote was from a government document, but here is a internet version.

www.investigate911.com...

Hi Ultima,
Can you provide the government link please? The link you provide says this... (that I find a little questionable):

FAA air traffic controllers in Nashua have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, said the employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

First of all... "learned through discussion with other controllers"
This is third hand knowledge at best and therefor not as reliable.

Second...The so called employee that is stating this third hand knowledge is anonomous...again...how can you verify this story is in fact true?