AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

reply to post by trebor451


I think its based in the fact that you can't dispute what I have posted and now you must resort to typical gutter tactics.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

As stated in the begining of this thread, I posted that this was something I would look into because I did not hear about "no plane at Shanksville" before. I even gave the OP an S & F for his hard work on the thread because I know how much goes into thread development. Even in spite of some attacks on me in this thread I WAS doing research into this and being a fair individual that I am, I have been looking at this video along with others and can state I "see" the possibility of this perhaps being true.

Above is my post you are referencing.

Giving him credit for his hard work on the thread is just a sign of respect. unlike yourself and Trebor have showed or possibly could demonstrate. His opinion is his own and while he may believe "no plane crashed or was shot down" I remain proven that there is more evidence to suggest a shoot down than "no plane or no shoot down".



[edit on 29-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by pianopraze


But the public will never know. Like the grassy knoll. Like Castro's exploding cigar. Like the Russian oligarch murders. Like who shot JR. Like if Tupac is really dead... etc.
But the interesting parts of these mysteries isn't finding out the exact details, which we never will, but the implications. I'm sure you will agree.
All of these instances involve political moves that in the long run would benefit the most amount of people according to the ones who carried them out. Utilitarianism, a principle that good people go by.
If 93 was shot down it was to save a city and population from destruction with the least amount of casualties.

As for 911 being allowed to happen to pull us into the Middle East and secure oil... well... that's really complicated and there are 1000 threads on it already.
I can assure you that there are thousands of muslims who are ready and willing to carry out more 911s in mass quantity and will begin 2010-2013. Why is that?

reply to post by JJay55


Maybe because over a million people have been killed and 2 countries have been invaded.

That stuff tends to make people angry.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Sean48]

Let's look at some aspects of this then....

"Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes... I--it was my advice. It was his decision."(Vice President Dick Cheney, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)


"That's a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the--given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was--I didn't hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done."(President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

Rumsfeld stated in a speech to US troops in Iraq (24 December 2004) that United Airlines Flight 93 was "shot down" on 9/11:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
(Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN.

Think now people, there were three nuclear power plants bewteen flight 93 and DC on that day.

2 F-16's were scrambled at 8:45 and arrived at the WTC about 9am. Why were the jets that responded BEFORE any crash so quick by comparison to the jets that responded AFTER 2 Towers had been hit?

CBS news archive - Federal investigators said on Thursday that they have not ruled out the possibility that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, after three other hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush gave the military orders to intercept and shoot down any commercial airliners that refused instructions to turn away from Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. And we all know it wasn't going to!

Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the awful
morning. "A person came on the radio," General Haugen said, "and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, `I want you to protect the White House at all costs." Meaning the White House whihc was the flight track for flight 93 after it had turned around.

* They deny a Jet in close proximity, but admit they were in position to shoot Flight 93 down:
"The F-16s were in position over Washington in time to have intercepted the fourth plane hijacked, the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania forest. Asked if rules of engagement would have allowed the Air Force to shoot the plane down, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday: "I think it was pretty clear at that point that that airliner was not under the pilot's control and that it was heading to do major damage." He said any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President Bush.

Comment: Subsequently, on Meet the Press later that week Dick Cheney said Jets were up and had the OK to fire while Bush was in Florida. Before 9:30am or 9:45 at the latest.

Another Denial on the 16th:
At the time, there were two F-16s armed with air-to-air missiles within 60 miles of Flight 93. But the fighters were still out of missile range when the jetliner crashed, sources told Orr
CBS News archive

Comment: This story are fairly amusing. An F-16 cruises at 577MPH and has a max of at least 1,800 mph according to a F-16 trainer peice. Without knowing the convergence, let's guess 1000mph minimum or about 17 miles a minute. At that speed these F-16's were less than 2 minutes out of unclassified missile range.

The myth that a missile would "blow up" any aircraft just isn't true unless you want to believe what the OSer's say.

Korean Airlines KAL007, a Boeing 747, was shot down by the Soviet Union Air Force on Sep. 1, 1983. They hit her with two missiles, an Apex and an Aphid. The Apex is a very heavy AA missile, with a 40kg preformatted HE warhead --if that thing gets you, no doubt it'll ruin your day. And although KAL007 was lost, she wasn't "blown out of the sky", but rather lost control, took fire and fell. Japanese fishermen witnessed it. The crew onboard heard the explosion and were communicating for 2 minutes after the initial impact.

Iran Air IR655, an Airbus A-300, was shot down by a Ticonderoga-class US Navy vessel, the USS Vincennes, on Jul. 3, 1988 with a very different kind of weapon: two RIM-66 Standard naval SA missiles, bearing 62kg HE each. No fighter carries such kind of missile, it's a naval/ground thing. Well, even with these beasts, IR655 lost one of its wings and the tail, lost control and fell, but, again, it wasn't "blown out of the sky".

Itavia flight 870, a much smaller plane (DC-9), was shot down by one or two AA missiles of unknown type fired by a NATO fighter over the Mediterranean on Jun. 27, 1980. The missile(s) hit exactly behind the cockpit, and almost severed the fuselage in two parts, a very messy thing. Well, this one didn't blow up, either, but also fell to the sea.






Spelling

[edit on 29-1-2010 by mikelee]

I wish I had a VCR running that day.

I remember when word hit the news about this flight. It was broadcast on CNN about how a passenger was on a cell phone...the passenger started talking about fighter jets visible out his window and then a 'puff of white smoke' coming from the airliners wing.

This was a major story for a few hours, then it just stopped. A couple days later the story was about how passengers called home to say they'd been hijacked but were going to rush the terrorists.

There was never any further mention of the original report, not even a retraction.

Anyone else?

Edit:

I have always found it interesting tht CNN has never once mentioned anything that contradicts the OS on this matter. Funny that a Cable News Network has total amnesia concerning their own story.

I have always expected that SOMEONE working that day would try to get the word out.

I wonder what they got in return.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by trebor451

 

I think its based in the fact that you can't dispute what I have posted and now you must resort to typical gutter tactics.

"Can't dispute"? I don't HAVE to dispute anything you post because the pure inanity of your posts cancel out any need to dispute anything. This thread is a classic example. There is *nothing* in the video you posted that any rational thinker could interpret as an AWACS airman saying United 93 was shot down. Nothing. The only people who would read that in those words are those who are weak minded and who are easily led by suggestive bloviation. I merely point out the obvious inane posts and the rest is accomplished by natural selection - a sort of Intellectual Darwinism. Yours are classic examples.

reply to post by [davinci]


Media blackout and control.

reply to post by trebor451


Thanks for your input. I now know what your about. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by JJay55
The truth is that WMD were used against our country and they will be used again. If you have security clearance you would know the truth. However, since you don't have what it takes to be in that position there things that you will just have to guess about in your lifetime.
Scream all you want, you will never know the truth or find it with a bad attitude of blame and anti-Americanism.
How many freeking threads are you people going to start with conspiracies about 911? Over and over, that's insanity. Try a different approach, maybe that will help you.
Good luck.

This is the kind of response I would expect from a DISINFO AGENT. First lies, then when presented with an inescapable truth, he says who cares?!

I was working at NBC that day. We got word that cheyney ordered 93 shot down. Within minutes, a widow was on the air railing against cheyney.

An hour later, the bulsht story of heroics emerged and the widow was extolling her heroic husband. How sick and cold-hearted is thatJay55? Did you call her or was it somebody in your depraved office, Mr. Top Secret Clearance?

Originally posted by [davinci]
I wish I had a VCR running that day.

I remember when word hit the news about this flight. It was broadcast on CNN about how a passenger was on a cell phone...the passenger started talking about fighter jets visible out his window and then a 'puff of white smoke' coming from the airliners wing.

Really? Have any "proof" of this viewing of fighter aircraft outside the window? Or do we have to take your word on this? And if we do, how strong is your word? Not very, it appears, based on your post.

As far as CNN or other cable stations not covering this BS, I'm pretty certain its because there is no truth to it - so why broadcast it? Simply because the Truther club believes it is not enough of a reason to take it seriously. In fact, if the Truther club DOES believe something, that right there is evidence enough for me to become predisposed to treat it as BS from the git-go.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by [davinci]

 

Media blackout and control.

Absolutely, but as things get worse and worse as a result of those events you'd think someone would want to try and get the truth out.

Nothing at all though.

He said "If necessary, as was the case with 9/11". (meaning he thinks NOW that it WOULD HAVE been necessary)

It doesn't seem he is saying "Back then we considered it necessary.." and even then it would be an extra stretch to take that as implication of "and so we carried it out, too"

I don't think he knows whether or not it was shot down but probably thinks it should have been.

I think it WAS shot down.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by blackhatchet]

[edit on 29-1-2010 by blackhatchet]

reply to post by trebor451


You're on the wrong site friend.

Do I have to prove that I watched the second plane hit the tower? No.

Do I have to prove that I watched the towers collapse? No.

Considering I started off stating that I wish I had a VCR running makes your asking for proof somewhat pointless. I do CLEARLY remember it though.

Tell you what, you prove that I DIDN'T see the live news broadcast about this passenger and I'll accept your rebuke.

Until then...



Edit:

If it adds credibility for you it was Wolf Blitzer whom I first saw report on this story that day, and 'puff of white smoke' is a direct quote.

Happy hunting.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by [davinci]]

In this ball game there are those who use their logic and brainpower to see through the very thinly veiled lie that the OS is. There are also those who are here to discredit and derail any information, ideas and discussion.

My point...... Everyone who has a brain knows the world was lied to that day. I think we should look to the future and ways of bringing the murderers to justice instead of going over the same information, with the same names derailing and looking stupid in doing so.

Dont let the neverending trawl through evidence stop your fight to get something done to the evil people who killed 3,000 Americans that day.
I hope I live to see them hang. From Bush to everyone who played a part.


Respects

reply to post by mikelee

I think your title is misleading. I am behind you, but I can't find the statement.

The debris above shows perfect colors of AA paint scheme. Other than the debris looking as if it was layed there, there is also a conspicuous absence of any paint scarring that would have most certainly happened if it impacted the ground.


The one above shows no paint scheme yet no grass or ground under the debris is burnt or shows sign of impact damage. In addition the piece of foliage added to the debris is not very convincing either. In addition this evidence photo used by the government has a date stamp of 9-14-01. I don't remember ever taking crime scene photos 3 days after the fact!!