Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


In my opinion I believe the plane was shot down to save their butts in DC then only afterwards did they realize, "OOPS what the heck are we gonna tell the public?" The flight was heading to the DC area based on the verified flight path after it turned around. The statement by a government that it shot down a commercial airliner is a big statement indeed and one that many just was not willing to chance even though that aircraft was being used as a weapon.

My bottom line is this, the plane was deemed to be a national security threat and the order was given to shoot it down. That has already been verified. Now, whether or not the gov would admit to the shoot down is another story but all of the debris expanantions etc just do not convince me that it wasn't shot down.

As for Rumsfeld, he was reading from a script and its hard to attribute a slip up in his comment.

Rumsfeld made that comment in 2004 at a military mess hall overseas. By then he would have been well familiar with the circumstances of that incident which actually provides an aire of crediability to his "shot down" statement.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by esdad71

 

If Flight 93 was shot down

Why is ther no evidence on the Flight recorders - every thing was
still operating until impact - engines, flight controls showed no damage

wow thats the dumbest question i ever saw.

lets say flight 93 was shot down, i dont believe it but for arguments sake, and the fbi covered this up....would you really expect them to release black boxes proving they were lying?

Originally posted by wholetruth



wow thats the dumbest question i ever saw.

lets say flight 93 was shot down, i dont believe it but for arguments sake, and the fbi covered this up....would you really expect them to release black boxes proving they were lying?

That's exactly what people in the Truth Movement have suggested happened with the Pentagon plane.

Reams of effort has been expended showing that the black box disagrees with what the government claims occurred.

reply to post by wholetruth


The recorders can be manipulated and thats a fact - FAA source.

Thats why there are about 10 minutes of missing recording space on the recorder - ZM trial source.

It is more plausible to believe that the plane was shot down than to believe what the OS states. In fact there is more evidence to suggest that it was shot down than that anything that proves it wasn't.

Originally posted by mikelee

It is more plausible to believe that the plane was shot down than to believe what the OS states. In fact there is more evidence to suggest that it was shot down than that anything that proves it wasn't.

That's fair enough. Indeed I don't know whether it was shot down or not - I've seen compelling evidence for both propositions.

But two things occur to me

-- If it was shot down then it was indeed Flight 93. I'm not saying you personally disagree with this, but that it nixes the Shanksville "no plane" theories

-- I notice that you suggest your conclusion based on a balance of probabilities. Of course that's the logical thing to do, but it's not something that some TM people are happy with, especially with regard to other aspects of 9/11. I've lost count of the number of times posters have asked for absolute proof, completely irrefutable evidence, of things that the non-CT version of events. Wrt the Pentagon, for example, anything short of a time machine that would allow them to go back and look for themselves is deemed insufficient.

Just some thoughts.

Originally posted by mikelee
It is more plausible to believe that the plane was shot down than to believe what the OS states. In fact there is more evidence to suggest that it was shot down than that anything that proves it wasn't.

really?

then where did the 65 tons unaccounted for end up?

where did the plane crash at?

the OS makes more sense than any other scenario put forth.

there is no evidence any plane was shot down.

if you believe it was shot down then you have to accept that it crashed in that field.

why?

because if they shot it down then the 'wings' were caused by the impacting plane. if they didn't shoot it down then this explains the bombing of the drainage ditch.

also the blast trajectory is in complete opposite direction that the plane was traveling and there is no debris field that leads from the crater to indian lake.

if the plane had been shot down and crashed elsewhere it would have left a debris path in the direction it traveled.

and while there was some debris recovered from indian lake there is nothing to indicate it would account for 65 tons of plane just like in shanksville.

not one single eyewitness saw a shoot down.

not one single eyewitness saw flight 93 leaving a trail of debris while flying or smoke.


what we have is a straight line of eyewitnesses beginning at route 30 near stoystown auto wreckers and ending at indian lake with no reports of it crashing there.

between the 2 there is a hole 10 feet deep and 15 feet wide.

if the plane caused the hole it can't fly over indian lake and if it flies over indian lake it can't cause the hole.

once you concede that there isn't a plane in the hole, you have to ask how could the crater be plane shaped if it wasn't planned in advance?

once you realize that there was never a plan to shoot down anything and the crater was prepped in advance to look like a wile e coyote type plane print then you know that reports of it being shot down are disinfo.

why would the government shoot it down anyways?

i thought 911 was an inside job? stopping the terrorists from reaching their destination doesn't sound like an inside job. it sounds like norad should have #ing done on 9/11.

'let's roll' was the silver lining of the dark fairy tale.

shanksville was as planned out as the pentagon and the world trade center was.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

That's exactly what people in the Truth Movement have suggested happened with the Pentagon plane.

Reams of effort has been expended showing that the black box disagrees with what the government claims occurred.

although the data from 77 ends way too early and is inconsistent with all eyewitness accounts among many other anomalies, there is no red herring that says 'this was shot down' like you would get if the plane had been engaged and damaged prior to impact.

apples and oranges.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I know. I consider myself neither a "truther" or a "skeptic" but have been lumped into one of those definitions because of the forum I participate in. To me as I have said all along, two planes crashed into the WTC but fire did not bring them down, the Pentagon was hit with an airborne object I just do not know of what type and flight 93 was shot down.

I'm not convinced the OS will stand much longer as the "official" story. primarily because it isn't evidentuary in its creation, concept or conclusions so it cannot be used to "evidence" any events that happened on 911. I think a lot of people misunderstand what it is and isn't.

I'm skeptical of the OS and want the truth about what happened.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by wholetruth


Don Rumsfeld stated it was shot down. I think he would know since he was the SecDef and made the comment in 2004. Well after 911 so I think by that time he would be in full knowledge & understanding of what happened in Shanksville PA.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

In the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui the jury heard the recording and they among others in the courtroom who heard it stated the same thing,

It sound like the plane had been "holed" as a sound of rushing wind could be obviously heard on the recording.

Debris in Shanksville? There has never been any pics released to prove that 60 tons of debris were ever collected by anyone.

The pics show debris that looks to be planted because of the burns on the debris but not the ground under it? Well thats also is evidence of parts burning as they fell from the sky too, the sudden impact of burning debris can be enough to extinguish it on the spot. As in many shoot downs of aircraft.

Many witnesses stated they either saw additional aircraft or heard missiles. But the glorious FBI didn't bother to look into them because they either already knew what happened or they had a preconcieved notion to go by.

In those first photographs shown by news helicopters on air that day, the hole looked pretty much the same as it did in a USGS sat photo taken of the same area in 1994. Now what are the odds that an airliner hijacked would crash in the same area and make what looks like the exact same anamoly in the ground...In the same spot!?



[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by wholetruth


All of your questions asked have been asked before and been debunked for the falsehood they represent in the varying opinions as to what I and others think. While I respect your line of questioning I'm not going to keep repeating answers to such questions which can be answered by doing a little research using the ATS search function.

You make assumptions of me in which I have never made of myself on what I believed happened. In short as many of you OS'ers do, you lump everyone into your "truther" catagory and apply the beliefs of many onto one.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by Lillydale


You always ask people for lists of names and proof when provided with said proof your head is immediately buried in the sand ive read your posts on the other flight 93 topic and you were given a witness list that you askd me for. then asked me for it again why because your poorly devolped theory holds no water.
Everyone must be lieing the whole world all the witnesses firemen national guard troops your own eyes. Wake up your request for info and the suggestion of inane lies about some set of events that dont mesh with any timeline is truly the grasp for attention.
I originally replied to you becasue it felt to me to be a very personal insult saying all us near part of this awful day are lieing or stupid or dellusional i watched the towers fall the farmer and numerous witnesses saw the plane crash the phone calls state the timeline on the plane very very clearly. but we are all lieing cause you pull sparadic bits of evidence from cooky sources. Quite insulting to say the least you are always just asking a question once again ive read your other posts but you fail to heed any truth in the answers you receive thats called IGNORANCE. no im not providing a link for the definition of ignorant like all the other evidence i have stated with just a few key strokes and google your theory goes down in flames but you will never understand because of your ignorance and denial.

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

That's exactly what people in the Truth Movement have suggested happened with the Pentagon plane.

Reams of effort has been expended showing that the black box disagrees with what the government claims occurred.

although the data from 77 ends way too early and is inconsistent with all eyewitness accounts among many other anomalies, there is no red herring that says 'this was shot down' like you would get if the plane had been engaged and damaged prior to impact.

apples and oranges.

wholetruth

I know you have been following the "New FDR decode" thread because you have been posting on it.

How can you say a final radio altitude of 4' combined with off the scale deceleration does not accord with witness statements ? Unless you are referring to CIT's cherry-picked segments.

reply to post by mikelee


You are obviously unmoveable with regard to Flight 93 being shot down. That is your position, I think you are wrong, but be that as it may, what do you think was going on inside Flight 93 when it was shot down - do you believe that the plane was hijacked and under the control of foreign terrorist?

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by wholetruth

 

Don Rumsfeld stated it was shot down. I think he would know since he was the SecDef and made the comment in 2004. Well after 911 so I think by that time he would be in full knowledge & understanding of what happened in Shanksville PA.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

i trust the people in shanksville more than donald rumsfeld, sorry.

name some people who saw a plane flying losing debris.

name some people who saw a plane flying with smoke coming from it from being engaged.

you cant.

there was no shoot down.

again, why would they shoot it down? it makes no sense.

it was fake, like the pentagon.

Originally posted by Alfie1
wholetruth

I know you have been following the "New FDR decode" thread because you have been posting on it.

How can you say a final radio altitude of 4' combined with off the scale deceleration does not accord with witness statements ? Unless you are referring to CIT's cherry-picked segments.

personally, i dont trust the fdr data for anything.

it came from the criminals.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by wholetruth

 

All of your questions asked have been asked before and been debunked for the falsehood they represent in the varying opinions as to what I and others think.

no, they haven't.

you believe flight 93 was shot down. so did it crash into that 10 deep hole or not?

if not then why does the crater have a plane shape?

if its because the government faked the crater then why do you believe they shot it down as the crater would have to have been made in advance if a plane did not crash there.

that is very simple to understand.

While I respect your line of questioning I'm not going to keep repeating answers to such questions which can be answered by doing a little research using the ATS search function.

well i'm asking you. i'm not asking an ats member from 3 years ago.......

You make assumptions of me in which I have never made of myself on what I believed happened. In short as many of you OS'ers do, you lump everyone into your "truther" catagory and apply the beliefs of many onto one.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

you're pretty blunt about the plane being shot down.

i'm not assuming anything.

i'm blunt that the plane wasn't shot down.
i'm blunt that the plane didn't crash in that field.

INDIAN LAKE PROVES FLYOVER AT SHANKSVILLE.

Originally posted by wholetruth

if not then why does the crater have a plane shape?

You mean the "wing" marks.

Here is a better question for you. Why was there already a plane shaped crater there. Not only were the "wing marks" already there in older pictures but there is grass growing in them after the plane supposedly made those holes.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOL

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by wholetruth

if not then why does the crater have a plane shape?

You mean the "wing" marks.

yes, yes i do!!!

Here is a better question for you. Why was there already a plane shaped crater there. Not only were the "wing marks" already there in older pictures but there is grass growing in them after the plane supposedly made those holes.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOL

because the wing marks are a drainage ditch and the circular crater in the middle was most likely created by a missile or bomb.

so you don't believe in this silly shoot down either, right?

the crater was prepped in advance just like bombs were put in the towers and the pentagon before 9/11.

so we agree, right?

reply to post by wholetruth


If you need answers go look through my threads on my page. There you'll get the answers you are seeking. I'm not going to indulge your questions because they have already been asked & answered many times over.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]