Flight 93 : Shot down & covered up

There are many opinions as to what became of flight 93 on 911. Only until all evidence is released then examined to be complete in it's integrity, can we be sure of what happened on that sad day in September. Many argue that it was a case of hijackers crashing the plane into the ground while other argue that it was shot out of the sky. There compelling arguments on both sides. In my opinion Ii believe it was shot down plain & simple.

Below the site on the morning of 9/11/01. Some very small flames showing, not much debris and obviously relatively small in size considering the size of the aircraft itself. A fact overlooked by many who argue that the did crash there is the question of why the site itself iis considerably smaller than the plane itself. After all, the plane if we are to believe it did in fact crash there, was intact up until it crashed therefore the outline of the impact point would be at least the size of the full plane. Not to forget that there is relatively low amounts of debris even though the FBI claims there were 60 tons collected. OK, where is all that debris then?




Below is the crash site in Madrid Spain of a 747 that crashed. .


Below the Lockerbee Scotland crash site. When the airliner's transponder stopped transmitting, it was flying at 31,000 feet (9,400 m) on a heading of 316 degrees magnetic, and at a speed of 313 knots (580 km/h) calibrated airspeed, at 19:02:46.9. Subsequent analysis of the radar returns by RSRE concluded that the aircraft was tracking 321° (grid) and travelling at a ground speed of 434 knots (804 km/h).


So where is all that debris located and I want to see it!! But the FBI refuses to release it because even in 2007 it still claims its in an investigation file.

We had recently received a letter from the FBI rejecting our request for a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of United Flight 93, the hijacked Boeing 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11. The FBI's response to our FOIA request was that the transcript is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act because "it could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of enforcement proceedings release of the CVR transcript could possibly hamper. The hijackers are all dead. Zacarias Moussaoui, who appears to have been designated as a member of the hijack team, didn't make it because officials at the flight school in Minnesota where he was trying to learn how to steer a 747 were suspicious of that odd request and called the FBI.

Now if the cry's from those who claim that "conspiracy theorists" are hurting those involved in 911 such as familys & surviving victims, then why won't the FBI just release the evidence or debris and put it all to a rest?

Langely Fighter Jets.

The fighters at LAFB were first placed on "battle stations" which means the pilots were in their cockpits with the engines off but prepared to start them up if the scramble order is given. Some claimed that LAFB was never involved as that was a theory of mine in another thread. Turns out they were deployed.

The three Langley jets will receive a scramble order at 9:24 a.m. and are airborne by 9:30 a.m.

119th Fighter Wing, Dean Eckmann, Craig Borgstrom, Langley Air Force Base, Northeast Air Defense Sector

With all of the confusion that day, many controllers could not keep up with all of the radio & radar traffic being either recalled, deployed or grounded. Many sources back this up. The fighters left to find flight 93:

Personnel on the operations floor at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) confirm to their mission crew commander (MCC) that they are prepared to issue an order to fighter pilots, telling them to fire on a commercial airliner. MCC Concerned about Possible Shootdown - Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS MCC, is concerned about what might happen next as the day’s crisis unfolds. He realizes he may need to order fighter jets under his command to shoot down an errant aircraft. He therefore starts walking up and down the operations floor, impatiently asking all his section heads and weapons technicians, “Are you prepared to follow an order to shoot down a civilian airliner?” All of them affirm that they will issue such an order if required to do so. Nasypany Confers with Marr - Satisfied with their answers, Nasypany gets on the phone to Colonel Robert Marr, who is in the NEADS battle cab, and asks him, “Have we already asked the questions?” What Nasypany means is, have they asked about getting authorization to take out a threatening aircraft? According to author Lynn Spencer, “Those authorizations, [Nasypany] knows, are going to have to come from the president himself, passed down from senior NORAD command in Colorado Springs.” Marr replies that Major General Larry Arnold, who is at the Continental US NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters in Florida, is seeking the necessary authorizations and is prepared to take any action required. Nasypany then briefs Marr on the armaments on board the fighters NEADS has had launched (see 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001). He adds: “My recommendation, if we have to take anybody out, large aircraft, we use AIM-9s in the face. If need be.” He means that if there is another hijacking, the most effective way to bring the plane down would be to fire a missile into its nose.

...going to have to come from the president himself...

And it did:

According to that account, the call occurred shortly before Clarke learns of the Pentagon attack, so roughly around 9:36 (see (Between 9:30 a.m. and 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Clarke, 2004, pp. 6-7] Clarke describes to ABC News, “I thought that would take forever to get that [shootdown] authority.” But, “The vice president got on the phone to the president, got back to me, I would say within two minutes, and said, ‘Do it.’”

However, Major General Larry Arnold, the CONR commander, will give a different explanation. He will tell the 9/11 Commission, “we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, DC, not in response to American Airline 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way.”

One of the Langely jets came back missing something it left with...A missile. According to the flight hands and the guards at LAFB.

Flight 93's path towards DC and the straight route to intercept by Langley fighters:



Despite what others have said and continue saying that the fighter jets at LAFB could not intercept in time I think is completely inaccurate given they were already in the air with others in the corridor. After flight 93 turned around it was tracking to the DC area. As stated earlier by Major Arnold thats exactly WHY they were in the air...to intercept it before it could reach the DC area. Apparently they already KNEW that it would head that way.


Multiple debris fields stated originally in many media outlets but after those initial reports of such, they were never heard again.




Continued below....



fix pic link

[edit on 22-1-2010 by mikelee]

In the trial of ZM the photos below were shown of the crash site:




Notice anything? It don't look like a crash site of an airliner! And thats all that really needs to be said here. Anything else is just a diversion tactic for alterior reasons.

And the photo from the site on the morning of 911. No smoke. No debris...nothing.



Not to mention that the two photos look dramatically different although they are of the same area.




Above the Bombardier that crashed in NY in Buffalo left much debris along with a large portion of it's landing gear. In Pennsylvania we see none of that. Not even in the bins used by the FBI.

While some may claim "differences" in the crashes for varying reasons one thing remains clear that is the same in each instance: They are plane crashes and plane crashes leave debris. Thats already been proven with flight 93's three debris locales. It was shown on national news and there can be disputing it.

In closing the absurd claim that the ground was soft and the plane vanished into the ground is a Mickey Mouse claim by pundits who refuse to open their eyes & mind that something else went on here beside the plane in the hole theory. If anything because the ground was softer then it should have actually preserved more of the plane despite the 500 mph speed. This aspect of 911 makes no sense and mark my words here, one day we will discover that the circumstances of this particular flight is vastly different than the TOL claims (The Official Lie).


Of course don't take my word for it. Let's hear from the Secretary of Defense in 2004 about what happened to flight 93.



Notice he's reading from a script which means it was written down for him to say. he went on just as nothing unusual was said because it was the truth, so why correct himself?


add vid & corrected pic

[edit on 22-1-2010 by mikelee]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by mikelee]

I said this on the day it happened.
Its easy to think the military wouldnt do something like this, but I honestly think they would.
If they feared the plane was going to crash into a building, it would only be logical to shoot it down.

If you do, then the passengers die.

If you dont, then the passengers die, along with whatever the plane was targeting.

It's a lose lose situation, and it sucks. But it's also reality.

reply to post by InertiaZero


It is sad and in no way is there any disrespect towards any victims or familys but the truth is not what the TOL says. It is a lose-lose situation as you stated and when they shot it down they knew that and covered it up along with their rear ends.

Very well put together piece,arguments can go both ways like you said but IMO something fishy went on that day that we won't find out any time soon.
if they just said they shot it down because they didn't have a choice it would makes things alot clearer.
for the families of those involved it would be a horrible thing to hear.it's a tough decision if you have to make that call

reply to post by mikelee


Exactly.

I mean no disrespect either.

Personally, I would feel alot better about the story if I knew the plane was shot down. That way, I know that while these people on the plane have lost their lives, the people at the original target are safe. They are safe because someone had to make a desicion in a pinch, and they chose the logical of the two.

The way it was presented to the general public, does not give the lives lost any real justice.
It almost seems as if making a dramatized movie about the situation made it better, and painted these victims as heros. They make the actual events of the incident while still in the air foggy, and shrouded in mystery. I think that's sick as well.

I cant wait until the truth comes out on all of this, on 911. I hope it does in my lifetime.

reply to post by rhynouk


Thats my suspicion, they shot it down then did the two step about actually telling the truth. Either way if was shot down or not the familys deserve to know and so do we. I got a nagging notion that it was shot down though.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by mikelee]

...and as I've said before, everyone from the Bush administration to NORAD to the Air Force all *admitted* to the 9/11 commission that there was a shoot down order on flight 93, and that they definitely would have shot it down, had they found it. It seems rather absurd to me that they would admit they were chomping at the bit to destroy it only to turn around and pretend they didn't destroy it.

Methinks rather than there actually being any real conspiracy going on, you're intentionally adding unnecessary layers to the mix in order to manufacture a conspiracy. For one thing, I can't believe anyone here has any real world experience and expertise in crash site forensics.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by GoodOlDave]

i dont believe the argument for it being shot down makes any sense, if they shot it down everybody knows what was going on that day and the level of public understanding for a decision that at any other time would be seen as being callous/evil is assuaged by the public knowledge of the other attacks.

The general public would have been very understanding and it would have just been seen by the public psyche as another unfortunate but in this case neccesary action that in the long run SAVED LIVES.

I do not see the evidence for a large boeing being shot down at or near shanksville all we have is the lies of the FBI the original statements of the coroner and sheriff, before they were retracted and obfuscated by later announcements, in a witness testimony with the police if you make a statement and then CHANGE that staement you are suspect for whatever reason you are doing it for.

It doesnt take much to work through the possibilities the ramifications and the witness testimonies of those people who have not changed their stories, and the original testimonies of those who have changed their stories.

Its quite telling that the civilians have stuck to their original testimonies even though they have been approached by investigators who have tried to twist their words to represent the event in a way in which they did not see it, and the non civilian personnels testimonies have changed.
Nothing going on here move on move on.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by The X]

www.youtube.com...

Thats what happened to the plane and the poor brave souls on board. The videos you posted were not of plane crashes that involved flat out nose dives.

www.youtube.com...

The young children of these Brave Americans are getting old enough to understand your accusations and this movement is doing nothing more than smearing the well earned superhero image of there dead parents. Great job i bet you'll get a bunch of stars and fag's.

If any of those kids or family members do by chance read this, your parents are hero's and if you ever need anything me and about 99% of the country are there for you!!!!!!

No need to respond i will not be back on this thread.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Methinks rather than there actually being any real conspiracy going on, you're intentionally adding unnecessary layers to the mix in order to manufacture a conspiracy. For one thing, I can't believe anyone here has any real world experience and expertise in crash site forensics

Any 'conspiracy" was manufactured the day the public and yourself was hood-winked into falling for the OS lies and half truths.

Eveything I have presented is a fact and is documented. But instead of proving me wrong people such as yourself come into these threads and make comments and statements for everything under the sun except for the thread and it's contents. I call that dis-information.

Flight 93 - Val McClatchey's "End of Serenity"




When you look at this photo you see a "mushroom cloud" the heat and debris from a short explosive single event, this does not show a plane crash burning off tons of fuel.

This youtube of a large nose diving plane crash gives some indication of the sive and colour of an explosion from an aircraft hitting the ground.
it is not a short explosive event but continues to burn in a vigorous way until the fuel is gone, jet fuel is a light oil which burns black not grey.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by The X]

reply to post by mikelee


I have seen many bomb craters and I have watched the use of dynamite in road construction.
Either one of these two were used at Shanksville to create a crash look- alike scene,
Only thing missing----da plane-da plane boss.The widely scattered debris were most likely dropped by the aircraft that dropped the bomb.
The passenger flight was a Northwoods type set -up. (See Operation Northwoods)
If you think the aircraft needed to be destroyed, then you believe box cutter camel jockeys or aliens had control of it.
They did not.

reply to post by The X


The picture the lady is holding is a bomb or explosive cloud.
Dropped or set, same difference.

Heavywieght debris in the lake would confirm that the plane was shot down. Somebody got these debris and I doubt anyone could ever prove that they were there. Maybe a diver could find more.

reply to post by anotherdad


In case you do return:

First, SPARE ME your sympathy for others rant towards me. You apparently do not have the courage nor the fortitude to ask the questions that need to be asked regarding this incident. Your personal feelings for the victims are no less well meaning than as mine and everyone else involved in seeking the truth as to why the government is keeping evidence secretly locked up for no other apparent reason than to hide something. Whatever that "something" turns out to be I'm pretty sure it will not only contradict what the TOL (The Official Lie) has stated but will provide more closure for the victims of this sad situation than what has been given to them up to this point. Which has amounted to nothing shortt of criminal actions that if they were experienced in any court room across the U.S. would receive punishment accordingly.

Unfortunately just as all other victims in incidents like these the avenue for the truth is not always the yellow brick road that most soft minded citizens would prefer. Having worked for the government and retired after 27 years of service I can tell you right now with a degree of absolute certainty that YOUR government has not only the capability of pulling off such an event but the will to do it as well. You need to wake up from your little freedom nap and get with the program before you wake up to find that your freedoms have been taken away by the people you put so much crediability into. And have brought you the TOL.

reply to post by The X


We all seen the planes blow up after hitting the WTC towers. And that photo looks nothing like that.

reply to post by mikelee


So if it was shot down by the govt, then that means there was an actual terrorist threat, there were actual terror attacks at NYC and DC, and all of this "inside job" bunk is a load of hooey. Shooting down Flight 93 does nothing for the Truth Movement and rather shoots it down (pardon the pun).
If it all was staged, the attacks in NYC and DC, then how hard would it have been to have a plane under their control go into a nosedive and crash? I mean if the impacts of both towers and the Pentagon were orchestrated by the "inside-jobbers", then logically Flight 93 was also under their control. And shooting it down is pointless, if they just could have had it flip over and do a nosedive. I know what you are thinking, what if "they" somehow lost control of the plane and it was flying on its own. So what? They could have let it fly on its own and crash where ever and just say the terrorists got lost and ran out of fuel. Boom, another airtight alibi. Why go through the trouble of shooting it down and THEN covering it up? Hell they even could have come out and said, we shot this plane down cause it was hijacked and a threat. Its not easy to admit to. But to do a coverup and keep it hidden for so long, makes no sense.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by mikelee

 

So if it was shot down by the govt, then that means there was an actual terrorist threat, there were actual terror attacks at NYC and DC, and all of this "inside job" bunk is a load of hooey. Shooting down Flight 93 does nothing for the Truth Movement and rather shoots it down (pardon the pun).
If it all was staged, the attacks in NYC and DC, then how hard would it have been to have a plane under their control go into a nosedive and crash? I mean if the impacts of both towers and the Pentagon were orchestrated by the "inside-jobbers", then logically Flight 93 was also under their control. And shooting it down is pointless, if they just could have had it flip over and do a nosedive. I know what you are thinking, what if "they" somehow lost control of the plane and it was flying on its own. So what? They could have let it fly on its own and crash where ever and just say the terrorists got lost and ran out of fuel. Boom, another airtight alibi. Why go through the trouble of shooting it down and THEN covering it up? Hell they even could have come out and said, we shot this plane down cause it was hijacked and a threat. Its not easy to admit to. But to do a coverup and keep it hidden for so long, makes no sense.

Your asking questions of me in the context of events on 911 that I have never stated nor believe happened. Also as many of your kind do lump anyone who questions the almighty OS in with "movements" as a whole without understanding where I'm coming from nor represent any willingness to even try to understand. Its no wonder that so many people think you skeptics are a bunch of narrow minded people because you can only think and discuss aspects of 911 in one context thats based in a defensive posture.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


Oh i was just referring to this in context with the rest of 9/11, because that is how it is done with LC, Pfffft, infowars, and the rest. They all go on and on abotu how all of this is evidence of "inside job" and blah blah blah.

I apoligze if I made it appear you were also one of the ones who would believe those other conspiracies ideas, as it was not my intention to put you in that light.