Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

How could these firefighters not know the truth?

Their are many first responders coming forward and speaking out against the official story, specailly since many are dieing after being lied to by the EPA that the air quaulity was ok when they knew it wasn't.

reply to post by Nola213


Yeah, you make a point that I forgot to mention -- there are so many. The likelihood of a sleepy little town actually seeing the plane go down is low. An F-16 can hit a 707 from miles away -- if they are not bothering to give last warning, so you would never seen the plane.

You would have to be looking exactly at that bit of sky to see a missile -- more than likely you MIGHT hear it but never see it.

So, there was probably only a 1 in 5 chance of anyone seeing the plane go down. There would be a 1 in 100 chance of someone having seen a missile. The idea that nobody saw an F-16 or a missile hit, unfortunately, doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I just don't think that the "wrestling with the controls" scenario is even true. If the passengers overpowered the hijackers -- they aren't at the damn controls -- they are standing up fighting, or the hijacker would have been knocked on the head. In my book, anyone with enough initiative to do that would be able to hold the plane straight.

It took years to get the tapes from the government. And they only let the families listen to the actual audio tape. You know, if you are going to cover-up things -- that's what you do. If you have nothing to hide -- you put everything on the table. The claims of "security" are utter bull#. Al Qaeda, or whomever, knows they were successful.

No, I'm pretty sure there was a scuffle. The heros took over the plane. And then the first thing they did was pick up the radio and try and call any tower for assistance. The mole -- or perhaps the head of the FAA who I think was surprisingly on duty that day (same thing at NORAD), would then be calling Cheney and saying; "What do I do?" Shoot it down -- what do you think? Idiot!

But there would be ways to prove and disprove this theory. The F-16 had to be a few miles away, and there had to be about 10 minutes lead time between the realization that the hijackers lost control and the shoot down -- otherwise, this was just an accident, where the knowledge of the repossession of the plane did not make it to the fighter pilot.

I'd look for whatever the default channel is, and see if any nearby towers had a visit by the Feds. I'd also only trust a forensic analysis on the Black Box's by a group of independent analysts. The missing last few minutes is already a huge red flag for me.

reply to post by daddymax


I'd read that the engine was 4 or 8 miles away. There is no possibility to BOUNCE it 4 miles or more. Meteorites hit many times faster -- and that kind of energy destroys or buries the object -- while the "bounce" is other debris. Engine would also not be in one piece.

There is no conceivable way for an impact -- even a sliding impact to throw the engine that far. It would have had to come off while up in the air -- if I wanted to look up the ballistics calculation I could tell you the height it would have to be. You would factor in the size of the object and expected drag, the weight, and I guess assume something like 500 MPH. Of course, a rocket might add a bit of push with the explosion. Anyway, it would have to be reasonably high.

If it was an airplane at all. You could still have about half of it falling at that spot in Shanksville. I'm skeptical of the "soft earth" claims, however -- quarry or not. The difference between soft farm soil and hard-packed clay would be nearly negligible. If it were peat moss or had a cavern underneath -- then yes, debris might disappear.

But this is the ONLY time I've hear of the FAA inspectors getting so little reclaimed. The Challenger blew up in mid air, and they scoured half the state and got more than half of it back. Same thing with an airplane that went straight into the Everglades.

The 9/11 Saga is just packed full of withheld information, and "Unique" events.

reply to post by IvanZana


I agree Ivan. The "smoking gun" video -- that they would actually have an award ceremony for the shoot-down. Kind of stretches credulity.

The BushCo Bloggers for Truth, are constantly trying to use the "Chewbacca Defense." If they can throw in -- or get someone seeming like a Truther to throw in, a silly Chewbacca that makes no sense -- then the whole argument makes no sense. That's why I urge caution about saying "what happened."

You also risk a lot by saying "no plane" because it's pretty hard to prove.

I just decry the obvious obfuscations, and withholding of evidence -- and how a plane that smacks into the ground gets its engine miles away.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Two-seater.

reply to post by Boone 870


If you READ, you will see that I was saying Zaphod was indicating that NORAD doesn't look IN to the country -- that they assumed to use only Civilian radar to look inward. -- he is, in my mind, trying to give that presumption.

And I'd heard it from various anti-truther theories. Here is one that was in print -- and the Miami Harold called them on it. I just don't make this a day job -- but, yes, like the "everyone knows Saddam was involved in 9/11" meme that somehow 70% of the country had at one time -- it's hard to catch the official source of the propaganda -- but somehow, all the damn shills sing the same tune; georgewashington.blogspot.com...

So yes, there were many claims in blogs and TV that gave people the idea that planes are not tracked when off of transponder -- it MIGHT not have been a NORAD claim -- it's just the bloggers I argued this nonsense with seemed to indicate it came from an OFFICIAL source -- so it is my fault for believing anti-truthers when their official source might well have been Rush Limbaugh.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You say a third. But that was one part. There were parts found at 4 and 8 miles away -- at least according to this one site. It is pretty important that we know these facts, as a 1/3 mile object could possibly come from a direct impact;
home.alamedanet.net...

If Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF with the knowledge of the SecDef, doesn't that seem to indicate that Flt 93 was a real threat. That it was under the control of someone whose intent was unknown and presumed to be malicious?


And if thats the case, doesn't that indicate that everything that went down on 9/11 was just what it appeared to be?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Yes, that was true about FDNY -- but he said New Jersey. Yeah, I'd heard at least half of these guys, who were poster-boy heros are dead now from what they breathed in the recovery effort. A lot of them are suing. NONE of this makes a ripple in the Mass Media.

Let's not assume things about posters. I'm 43 and have two kids and 6 years of college. I never wanted to grow up and "be suspicious of my government."

I do, however, dream of being able to track down all the paid bloggers who are betraying their country. While I don't suspect any here today of that -- their ARE paid bloggers. If the corporations have them to police webs and massage corporate images -- then damn sure the BushCo does.

Most firemen also know that steel buildings do not collapse from fire.

So why several months BEFORE 9/11 did I attend a seminar with
FDNY battalion/deputy chiefs as instructors have them explain
how a building collapses and warning signs (cracks in walls, smoke
pushing out, noises, etc). Many of my instructors were in command
at WTC that day. A fireman going into any structure knows it may
suddenly collapse without warning. Case studies were presented of
Meridan Plaza in Phila. which while didn't collapse was complete
wreck and have to be abandoned and torn down.

What you seem to forget is the structural damage BEFORE the fires
something about large airliners being rammed through the building

Nothing like this have ever been seen before (probably never will again)

If Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF with the knowledge of the Secretary of Defense, doesn't that seem to indicate that Flight 93 was a real threat.

Yes, but in fact it became a threat to the organizers of 9/11, who, with a high percentage of possibility, included Rumsfeld and Cheney.
They could not afford that this remotely handled plane, landed on an airport.
It was prepared to hit a preset target, but was too far delayed on the take-off runway, to be of any service anymore to the actual propaganda scenario, actually it went out of the maximum ""keep it believable to the public"" time-window. It was not programmed to land at all.
So the only solution was to shoot it down. Too many FAA controllers were involved tracking it already on their screens, it could not covertly land on a USAF base anymore with all the proof inside.

That it was under the control of someone whose intent was unknown and presumed to be malicious?

Yes, again, these ""someones"" were not Al Qaida or Muslim terrorists, but State-sponsored terrorists, such as rogue top brass military men, politicians and wealthy billionaires from rogue conglomerates.

And if thats the case, doesn't that indicate that everything that went down on 9/11 was just what it appeared to be?

Yes, you're so damm right!
It definitely appeared exactly what it turned out to be, a crooked political "false flag" deception steered from the highest levels, backed by top brass military personnel, to gain immense advantages in global energy-, political- and military-control.

All military brass involved on 9/11 was PROMOTED.
Any sane honest president would have sacked them all immediately instead.
Those promotions were their part of the deal, amongst other advantages.

reply to post by LaBTop




LabTop - Good to hear from you.

Are you among those that believe there was no airplane crash at Shanksville?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

That's why the government slapped a federal gag order on them.

100% FALSE statement. I would ask you to back it up but I know for a FACT you can't. There was NOT a gag order on the FDNY.

You obviously are inventing this spew up as you go.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Their are many first responders coming forward and speaking out against the official story, specailly since many are dieing after being lied to by the EPA that the air quaulity was ok when they knew it wasn't.

Ultima,

can you please show me where the EPA states that the Air Quality at GROUND ZERO was ok.

Thank you

Dark Blue Skies,
No, I'm undecided yet, my momentary stance on the subject is based on the following observations :

1. The evidence of a decades long (planned in advance) psychological warfare-based deception are gaining enormous momentum at present.
Since the delay at the take-off airport messed up the carefully planned flight plan for Flight 93, it didn't fit anymore in the deception, it would damage the carefully planned deception, when it would have managed to hit another, fourth target in Washington, after that long delay, and ALSO would have avoided all fighter jets in the air at that time.
The public, even in a patriotic frenzy, would not have been so stupid, to believe such an illogical event for too long. And definitely not the uninformed, majority of the military.

2. There are too many, seemingly uninvolved in any deception, witnesses, who saw a commercial airliner high in the skies above Shanksville, and there are a few who saw or heard other low flying jets not even remotely looking like an airliner. (not so amazing btw, the area is a remote one, and sparsely populated).

3. The low flying jets were identified with a great percentage of validity as :
a. A white Wardhog dive bomber/tank-killer jet, usually equipped with an impressive amount of air-to-air rockets and a heavy cannon. It has a double tail with a big fin on top, and two fat jet-engines.
Identified by one of the very believable eyewitnesses by looking at photos of possible planes, when asked to identify the one she saw flying very low over the tree tops, at the same time when flight 93 came down while obviously struggling to keep airborne.
b. The biggest surprise to me, a circa 3 meter wide white military drone, flying in front of a woman in a car, just a few meters above ground, then tilting just enough to skim over the treetops, and disappearing towards the spot where she saw the following explosion and smoke of the impact of presumably flight 93 in the ground. She did not actually witness the impact, just saw the smoke billowing up.
Domenick DiMaggio from CIT interviewed and videotaped this woman, and she gives an impression of a very honest, concerned American to me.

Please note that such a drone is a relatively slow flying plane, more shaped like a fairly big model-plane.
The Wardhog is also capable of flying fairly slow, much slower than a fighter jet. But it can also keep at pace with a fast airliner, if needed.
Then we have the official explanation for a second jet, the LearJet said to be instructed by Flight Controllers to take a look at the impact site.
Strangely enough, no one saw that one, while all available eyes were skimming the skies after the impact and subsequent smoke column billowing into the sky. (Remember, if you believe in a deception, that LearJet is surely a deceptive invention, afterwards).

I have no great faith in any official reports of black box audio and data, since their appearances came years too late to be believable anymore.

It is another possibility, however unlikely, since the unexpected delay at take-off, that Flight 93 WAS a part of the deception, all the way until the moment of the crash, to increase the expected wave of patriotism sweeping the nation on 9/11.

It is even remotely possible, that the same trick has been played on the world audience, clustered to their TV's, as at the Pentagon, where we now see more CIT evidence of a north of Citgo flightpath, which totally nullifies the officially promoted south of Citgo flight path, including the officially downed light poles, and the official damage path inside the Pentagon, in line with the downed light poles. A north of Citgo flying airliner could never ever have downed any of these light poles.
In that case, all the 9/11 official explanations are plain old lies.

So, perhaps the same trick was played at Shanksville, with a dive down of Flight 93, and a fly-over of the "impact" crater spot, and a disappearance of 93 flying low, under the radar, to another airport. While the drone or the Wardhog caused the crater, by means of physical impact, or use of explosives or rockets.

That drone is the most mysterious appearance on the scene of Shanksville, it's necessity is not yet clear to me, but there must have been a very serious reason for the deception-planners, to include this drone in that event.

Perhaps you have a logical explanation for this drone?

Note that supposedly the delay of flight 93's take-off must have caused great stress for the planners and perpetrators of that day, so how could that drone have been planned at forehand, the thing is much too slow to have been thrown in unexpected.
It must have been launched by a C-130 (which was 20 miles away, the same one which checked the impact at the Pentagon, just after impact, then passed Shanksville and checked that impact also out for Flight Control) or by a NOAC "doomsday" plane, or any even more mysterious explanation for its existence on that spot on that day.

There must have been multiple layers of protection in place, at all costs, for the Deception to be played upon us, with no room for disastrous failure.

Just place the following words in Google :
gag order on the FDNY

then do another Google for :
air quality at Ground Zero

Just read the first pages of hits.

reply to post by LaBTop


Hi LaBTop, I'm not familiar with your particular theory regarding flight 93. If you wouldn't mind elaborating a little more, I have a few questions.

They could not afford that this remotely handled plane, landed on an airport.
It was prepared to hit a preset target, but was too far delayed on the take-off runway, to be of any service anymore to the actual propaganda scenario, actually it went out of the maximum ""keep it believable to the public"" time-window. It was not programmed to land at all.

(bolding mine)

When you say ''preset'', ''programmed'', and ''remotely handled'', I'm guessing that you mean a combination of all three, correct?

Also, you said, ''too far delayed''. Flight 93 was delayed for 25 minutes compared to flight 175 that was delayed for 14 minutes. That's only 11 minutes difference.

Why didn't the perpetrators (knowing that flight 93 was delayed at departure) just turn the aircraft around earlier to head back to Washington?

Im sorry but Ive known for a very long time that flight 93 was shot down.

I mean dang, youve got someones wife telling the story of how they heard the explosion while on the phone with her husband. Who was on the plane.

Seriously there is a lot of evidence. It doesnt matter how much evidence you present to the public they just do not want to believe that our government killed those people.

Fact is they had a very short time frame to kill them in. They arent going to do it where everyone can seem them. Those people were killed by our government. They would have died anyways on impact.

No ones a hero, it was a big *** mess and people did what they could do in the spur of the moment. What they thought was right. Did Bush cause 911? Now that would let us place blame on someone. But if we dont know that he did cause it, shooting those people down is no conspiracy. Its public relations LOL!

One thing about 911, we will never know what happend.
And I think thats the main cold hard fact.

We will never know.

reply to post by LaBTop



Very interesting and thought provoking ideas, but I still wonder if you believe UA93 crashed in Shanksville or another aircraft crashed there, or a bomb or missile was employed to replicate an airliner crash.

You see, I'm wondering, because you seem to be a proponent of a remotely guided UA93 intended to hit a target in MD or DC. You imply that it was brought down because of a delay in take off. Where was it brought down? In Shanksville? If it was, then the crash scene is as strange as the Pentagon...not much evidence of an airplane, conflicting eye witness reports, etc.

If it did not crash in Shanksville, and the plan was aborted late, then you must agree that the perpatrators (who ever they were) managed to re-route the airplane to a secret location and dispose of the aircraft and passengers with no outside witnesses, or crash the airplane in another location, fake all the radar data, all the DFDR data, and and clean up the crash site with no witnesses catching on.

How do you reconcile these apparent discrepancies?




[edit on 7/11/2008 by darkbluesky]