the shanksville incident flight 93

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I will say from the evidence we have now, i would say that Flight 93 was shot down.

absolutely, or there were explosives on board. Either way, something happened to it in the sky. Have you guys looked at the Pan Am Flight 103 and the Lockerbie disaster? There are some striking similarities.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 4-11-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
absolutely, or there were explosives on board. Either way, something happened to it in the sky. Have you guys looked at the Pan Am Flight 103 and the Lockerbie disaster? There are some striking similarities.

Yes, and then you look at Flight 800. Plenty of people still say a missile brought it down.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I will say from the evidence we have now, i would say that Flight 93 was shot down.

To avoid misunderstanding, can you clarify which specific empirical evidence leads you to hypothesise that Flight 93 was shot down. And in the interest of of establishing a constructive debate, could you specify where you believe Flight 93 was shot down if it was not Shanksville?

I am also interested in hearing your opinion of what happened in Shanksville to cause so many people to believe that there was an accident there, and what evidence you are able to offer to support your opinion.

In the interest of being thorough, it would be greatly appreciated if you could directly cite sources of evidence you believe support your hypothesis and provide commentary on what you believe any evidence you provide shows, and how it shows this.

Thanks.

Originally posted by monoclear
To avoid misunderstanding, can you clarify which specific empirical evidence leads you to hypothesise that Flight 93 was shot down. And in the interest of of establishing a constructive debate, could you specify where you believe Flight 93 was shot down if it was not Shanksville?

Well first let me state that i have a background in aviation. The first thing i noticed about the Flight 93 crash scene was the 2 distinct, seperate debris fields. If the plane just impacted the ground straight down you would not have 2 debris fields any distance from the impact point.

The 2 debris fields would indicate that the plane was breaking up before it hit the ground.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


There are some points I need to clarify before we proceed:

Well first let me state that i have a background in aviation.

I mean this in the politest way possible, but simply because you state something does not mean it is fact. Even if you do have a background in aviation it does not signify you as as authoritative, nor does it preclude you from your obligation to provide evidence to support your claims.

The first thing i noticed about the Flight 93 crash scene was the 2 distinct, seperate debris fields. If the plane just impacted the ground straight down you would not have 2 debris fields any distance from the impact point.

It would be helpful if you could cite some well established peer-reviewed research or empirical evidence to support your assertion, as is standard in scientific investigation.

Just to clarify, do you believe there was a plane crash at the scene of the alleged Flight 93 incident?

Originally posted by monoclear
It would be helpful if you could cite some well established peer-reviewed research or empirical evidence to support your assertion, as is standard in scientific investigation.

Just to clarify, do you believe there was a plane crash at the scene of the alleged Flight 93 incident?

Here is a map of the impact site, engine and debris fields.
i114.photobucket.com...

As far as if it was FLight 93 that crashed there, we do not have any reports matching parts found to Flight 93.

Also strange is ther are no photos or videos of a tail section but they found the black boxes.

There's another big misconception fabricated by some of the 9/11 tabloids. That there were 2 separate debris fields. This is 100% incorrect. This was also addressed on a recent history channel documentary as well.

A few light pieces were found by police at the nearby lake. These were simply things like paper that had blown that way. And the police who were there collecting it explained it on camera. Also, the tabloids try to mislead people into thinking that the lake was over 6 miles away when in fact it was only a mile away. What the tabloids did was use map quest to calculate the driving directions between the field and the lake. And yes by car on roads, it is 6 miles. But the debris is not going to take a road that goes around the lake, it's going to go in a somewhat straight path, which was less than a mile.

Originally posted by snoopy
There's another big misconception fabricated by some of the 9/11 tabloids. That there were 2 separate debris fields. This is 100% incorrect. This was also addressed on a recent history channel documentary as well.

Oh, then you can explain how an engine was found about half a mile away.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Here is a map of the impact site, engine and debris fields.
i114.photobucket.com...

By who, using what measure of accuracy?

Perhaps however I was not clear enough in my request, the assertion I was asking you to provide supporting evidence in that quote was "If the plane just impacted the ground straight down you would not have 2 debris fields any distance from the impact point."

As far as if it was FLight 93 that crashed there, we do not have any reports matching parts found to Flight 93.

That is not what I asked, I asked if you believe there was a plane crash at the scene of the accident? Not what kind of plane or which plane.

reply to post by robert z



The Post - Gazette article you linked to merely says that recently he allegedly found some scrap in the woods and some ' body parts ' , not even labeled as ' human ' by him, too decomposed to be of any use. If he found scraps of what he thinks is some type of flesh, and they are beyond analysis, then he can draw NO conclusions as to their origin, identity or type, now can he? Simply looking at some years old piece of supposed meat does not allow anyone to make a determination that they came from the incident at hand, or if they are remnants of some animal or planted by the black ops guys later, after the event.

In any case, if the ' parts ' he allegedly found do not have any identifying marks or characteristics that could definitely link them to the event, then they are useless and mere garbage in a wooded area. The article says that he found nothing of any signifigance and no proof of anything. The FACT remains that he said that HE WAS FINISHED AS CORONER BECAUSE THERE WERE NO BODEIS AND NO BLOOD .Why would he say that if it were not true? I am sure he has been visited by the Feds and asked to stick with the official story and make no more remarks that can help undo the conspiracy.

The TRUTH is this: There was no jumbo jet found in Shanksville at that 10 X 15 foot pit. If there was we would have several camera angles 24/7 of the efforts to retrieve the remains and pictures of the trucks hauling the many suitcases and engines and seats and airframe out of that pit...but we do not see that. All pictures were banned ecept for the sanitized versions allowed by the White House. No trucks with the two massive engines on them..no trucks with the airframe parts, all 100 tons of it. No trucks hauling away the debris always caused by an aircraft crash..why not?

WHY didn't the government simply show the engines being hauled out of the ground and an official of the FAA comparing the serial numbers of the engines right on the spot, on live TV. THAT would end any discussion of what happened, wouldn't it? Of course it would, and THAT is why we will never see that, because they CANNOT compare any numbers because there were no engines there to haul out and compare!! Conspiracy theories grow precisely because the official story asks us to believe that they acted in totally suspicious and misleading ways merely as coincidence.

They ask us to believe that they ' forgot ' to think about maybe showing the proofs of their assertions so that no doubts would be raised. Why not short cut any conspiracy theories from the start by just being open and sharing and willing to show any and all evidence to the public? Why NOT show the 80 some odd videos of the Pentagon that they have? If there was a plane there then simply show it!! If not then they are busted.

In Penns. the Flt. 93 matter is a really quirky one, and one that shows that the best laid plans of mice and men ( neocons and black ops ) do not always come out perfectly. Flight 93 was supposed to have crashed into either Bldg. 7, or into another Washington landmark..but I doubt personally that it was headed to the Capitol. I believe that it was supposed to be a third ' back up ' plane ( or the official story would have been ) meant to make sure that both Towers were struck in case one of the others failed to do so. Since the Towers were hit already, the plan was to slam the 3rd plane into Bldg. 7, thus giving another ' likley ' scenario for the perps to claim as the cause of the ' collapse ' of Bldg. 7.

Bldg. 7 housed offices that were taken out as a way to curtail certain investigations and to destroy evidence of several kinds. It HAD to go, so when the Flt. 93 issue arose, the building had to be taken down with explosives, which it was prewired for in advance, both as back up in case needed, as it was, or to facilitate the destruction had the plane actually made it there.

So Flt. 93 was a critical part of the plan, and I believe that the passengers were off loaded and placed along with the passengers of all the other planes onto ONE jet..a jet with NO pilots up front, and crews in the rear that were unaware of what was about to happen. That plane, carrying ALL of the passengers, was then remotely flown out to sea, and ditched at high speeds into the ocean, with massive explosives being detonated just prior to crashing to insure the complete and total destruction of all the evidence, and then it sinks away forever.

With the passengers dealt with, the planes could be stored away for a while and then reflown commercially for a few years, until someone noticed they were not listed as gone..and then they decommissioned them all, with one exception shown gone soon after the event. That was the plane used to go to sea and get rid of the passengers. The next stage was the attacks in New York, with either different planes or holographics as you believe..whatever..but the images at the least were of planes screaming into the Towers at high speeds, entering the Towers totally before any damage was seen to the buildings.

In both cases, bright flashes of light were seen emitting from the ' planes ' just prior to impact, raising the issue of a signal for explosives to be discharged. Many questions remain..far to many to simply pass off as ' anomalies ' and forgotten..NO, there are many and varying issues that DEMAND scrutiny and until they are answered satisfactorily there can be no agreement or peace about this subject..

reply to post by six


prove the official story ..that's the one that was stated as fact! if you feel so strongly about it ,it will be easy to explain EVERY detail no problem. it should be easy for you to debunk the hundreds of holes concious people find in "the great fairy tale". you can start with the first post in this thread and educate us by proving them wrong one by one... ok,GO!!!

PS DONT FORGET TO USE FACT,IT'S AN OFFICAL STORY YOU ARE SUPPORTING

JUST ONE POINT EVERYONE FORGETS

check this video out

youtube.com...

now,if the plane was descending @10000 ft per min, in a 400+mph dive,how did it level out and strike the tower on a level trajectory?

youtube.com...

pretty slick flying for a pilot with very few hours. oh ,and by the way, can someone explain how the jet didn't rip itself apart before impact? i seem to remember an engineer saying the plane couldn't fly at that speed,at that altitude on a level path,let alone pulling out of a dive like that.
air brakes?
sorry about wandering from the original topic,this was about UA175
[edit on 5-11-2007 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 5-11-2007 by Spectre0o0]

Did anyone find Flight 93's tail section yet?

I would really like to know where it is, or what happened to it.

reply to post by Spectre0o0


Why do I have to prove the "official " story? Granted there are some holes from sloppy investigative work, but the evidence is there. You are the one with a counter point, a different hypothosis, therefore it is up to you to prove your point. Bring your evidence to the table. Prove to me that the flight never existed, was shot down, was a hologram. Bring to the table creditable proof, not some half baked idea you are parrotting from some "expert". Show me pics of a missile contrail, of missile wreckage. Prove to me there was no body parts on scene, that ALL the rescue workers were lying and in on a cover up. Prove to me that the was no plane wreckage in the field, that what was there was planted. Prove to me that holograms of this magnitude exisist. YOU are the one with a counter point. Not I. So therefore the burden of proof is on you. So have at it.

Originally posted by antsi
Did anyone find Flight 93's tail section yet?

I would really like to know where it is, or what happened to it.

Well they had to find some of the tail section, if they found the black boxes. the black boxes are in the tail.

reply to post by pigchunks

In my opinion,

There was no flight 93 at all...it was an illusion by aliens who used it as a front to gain a foothold into our society. The real reason of course that they desire to gain a foothold is to ultimatly produce a cookbook, "To serve man"...those demonic creatures they are.
The WTC flights were not airplanes at all, but hollographic projects time with Star Wars technology lasers that destroyed the towers.
Each person who supposedly died in the towers and planes were actually clones that the CIA produced some years ago in anticipation of all this operation.
One of the real backfiring that the CIA never expected was when Bobby threw the football at Marcia and her nose swelled up. The clones had to be adjusted at the last minute or the jig would be up.

reply to post by Valdimer
I subscribe to the missile theory myself why else would the FBI make her shut her window blinds? the American public would never accept the fact that one of our fighter jets took down an airliner even if it was for the security of the nation.

i would have to say the people that were on 93 are sitting in the same office as flight 77. why were these flights at diminished capacity? ever try to use a cell phone on a plane? wonder if they were on the phone while it was diving straight at the ground? hmm. im irish and used to drink alot, tons of bar fights. grew up in the bad part of boston. ive been cut by knives bigger than boxcutters. im still here. and i continued to fight after being cut. do you believe that a bunch of guys decided to stop the hijackers with boxcutters and they said "whoa, im toooo scared now! go ahead, take the darn thing! you didnt have to get mean about it?"

i would have to say the people that were on 93 are sitting in the same office as flight 77. why were these flights at diminished capacity? ever try to use a cell phone on a plane? wonder if they were on the phone while it was diving straight at the ground?

Try doing some research. The flights were flying at about their normal passenger levels. And yes, I have used a cell phone on a plane. Of course the majority of the phone calls were made from airfones, not cell phones.