FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by OrionStars


Seven bases had fighters on alert and ready to go.

If you believe that there were more than that, please post a link. When the US was in the thick of the Cold War, they had as many as 100 bases with alert fighters. That was a long time ago and things change.

reply to post by Boone 870


Post your source that says only 7 bases were ready. Which ones one they and where were the rest that should have been ready? Like on the east coast and in Ohio?

They were already in NYC playing anti-terrorist games with real airplanes on 9/11/2001. So why didn't they intercept because they were there? They did not do that. NORAD and the FAA claim they thought it was part of the games.

Yet, alleged Betty Ong (alleged Flight 11) was said to be calling Raleigh Reservations to tell the woman on the other end she thought they were being hijacked. That would probably be Raleigh, NC reservations not Raleigh Airlines.

TextPost your source that says only 7 bases were ready. Which ones one they and where were the rest that should have been ready?

"The rest that should have been ready"??? What "rest"? Or did you sleep completely through the early 90s to 2001 and MISS the peace dividend that reduced our alert status from the Cold War to the level we were at in 2001?

Congratulation you truthers.

In this thread not one debunker was able to prove a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville.

I believe the FLight 93 will break the backs of the liars in short time.

Again. Congratulations.

reply to post by IvanZana


Umm, nope. The "debunkers" have continually provided links showing physical evidence and witness statements that show Flight 93 DID crash in Shanksville.


You must be a Democrat the way you twist the truth........

Thank you agree.

Go back 75 pages. No evidence that a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville on Septmber 11th.

Remember? It was all part of the terror drill.

Do you want me to post you all the links of the terror drill on 9/11 that involved mock hijack exercises and crash simulations.


I didnt think so.

The truth wins the day Ivan. Good job!!!

This all confirms my first thoughts and gut reaction the first time I saw the crash site on T.V. when it was first reported. No plane there.

I thought maybe they were just showing us part of the crash site at first. Like maybe the place where an engine had pounded into the ground or something, not the whole plane. It was so obvious from the beginning, yet we all had to take the long way around to unweave the stinking hotpile that was served up to America and the world.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


They had time to take so many planes to play anti-terrorist games on 9/11/2001. They could not leave enough at ready planes to defend the US? Why not?

reply to post by jackinthebox


I agree. Surrreal that the second part of a crashed plane to hit the ground is normally the engines, and no signs of engines impacting the ground. Only "wing scars" around 75' too short to be on any Boeing commercial jetliners. No wings, no engines (except obvious planted parts from some other model aircraft and few of those), no cockpit, no fuselage, no tail, no passengers, no luggage, no seats, etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Is that your proof of a NORAD stand down?

The proof is the 4 aircraft flew around for a long time without escort, something that a professional agency like NORAD would not have left happen.

Flight 93 crash site:




Flight: 93 recorder unharmed:


Comparison:

Nigerian Airlines Crash site:



Air France Crash Site(s):







Now Tell me.. How can 4 planes in one day be desintigrated by jet fuel when no other plane crash in history has ended up this way? The "plane" that "crashed" into the pentogon had Titanium alloy engines and they too, "desintigrated" on impact. This makes no sense, seeing as how blood was found to be cited as forensic evidence.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

Editing due to image link failures.. I'm still a n00b at this.

The fact that the flight cockpit recorder but not the flight data recorder was found in all planes on 9/11, I believe points to a cover-up.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by TyrannyofAmerica]

reply to post by OrionStars



You really just dont get it do you? Those planes that were taken to the exercises werent "alert" planes. Again, go reread the history of the 90s. The Air Force wasnt provided the money to keep more than 7 bases as alert bases (yes it DOES take money) nor more than 14-16 planes on ready alert.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I understand just fine. The US had no national defense between the hours of 8:46 - 10:03 am on 9/11/01. We have proof of that. It is a dead issue for these discussions, except for those desperately clinging to the "official" reports, while they are being shedded through their fingers bit by bit.

And yet, it is still quite obvious you do not, nor will not understand

reply to post by OrionStars

At the time of the attacks, only seven locations—around the perimeter of the United States—were engaged in the air defense mission. Each was assigned a pair of Air National Guard fighter aircraft ready to scramble if US airspace were threatened Source

Otis ANGB, Mass.
Langley AFB, Virginia
Tyendall AFB, Florida
Homestead ARB, Florida
Ellington ANG, Texas
March ARB, California
Oregon ANG, Oregon

NORAD was not in New York before the attacks. Can you provide a link confirming that the FAA and NORAD thought the attacks were part of a drill?

reply to post by Boone 870


They were having anti-terrorist games in NYC on 9/11/2001. Why do keep leaving that out? Oh, I remember. If you do not give us every bit of unproved data, you have to admit the "official" reports are completely inconsistent, illogical, and untrue. We cannot have that now, can we?

reply to post by OrionStars


I take that as a no.

More hearsay without anything to back it up.

reply to post by Boone 870


You will take what as a "no"? I did not respond to anything that required yes or no. How absurd your statement is.

Do you have anything logically relevant to the topic? Yes? No? Don't know? None of the above?