HOT! FOX news report: 93 shot down by F-16 from DC National Air Guard

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


and if you believe he did it all by himself without some help then I have a bridge to sell you.

Ok let's assume the sceptics's interpretation of this video is correct - that a plane was not shot down, but 'deterred'. What happened to it then? Where did it land and was it escorted there by the F16? What was the explanation for it's actions?
None of these questions have answers, because none of the official accounts of the events of the day make mention of this incident.
If true it would be the only instance of effective air force vigilance on the day, something you might be forgiven for thinking the air force and the government would be keen to publicise. Surely there should have been a pilot with an awful lot of explaining to do?
Even if the intercepted plane wasn't shot down this is still a major incident yet this is the first we have heard of it, and although this may be stating the obvious that alone demolishes the sceptics' view.

reply to post by dragnet53

Originally posted by dragnet53
and if you believe he did it all by himself without some help then I have a bridge to sell you.

Hello dragnet.

I don't believe Bin Laden acted alone, and I never said I thought that he did. I stated that perhaps he and Al Qaeda did it. You have to remember that before all of this happened, anybody could still hijack a plane. Have any planes been hijacked in the US since 9-11?

You can keep the bridge, I really don't have any use for it other than to drive over it. They are usually old and falling apart, and even if they are new, they cost a fortune to maintain. And if you want to charge toll to make some money, you have to hire operators to make change and collect dollar bills. And then you get taxed to death on top of all that..............

[edit on 21-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

This I would beleive happened, it is what I have thought all along. Matter of fact my husband was in the navy, served in Desert Storm, and he had said before we even heard about flight 93 that any other plane in the sky once airspace was monitored risked being shot down, even if there were civilians onboard.

reply to post by space cadet


I agree. The government couldn't have taken a chance at that point because nobody knew how many hijacked planes were still in the air.

I always thought that flight 93 was shot down once they found out that the passengers may have gotten control of the plane they realized the US government would be facing a major lawsuit once it came out that the USAF shot down a cvillian airliner.That's why it was covered up.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by micpsi

 

So they shot down a plane that didn't have any people in it.

Let's analyse this a bit. They bothered to empty the plane despite not caring about the people they were going to kill in the twin towers. Then they shot it down because... why?

Why analyse it a bit when you can analyse it a lot? I recommend taking the time to read through both of the sources below because even though I don't fully accept all of the suggested scenarios, the evidence presented establishes an Occam-razor-friendly explanation for the myriad events of the day. I couldn't possibly do justice to these documents by paraphrasing them here but the bottomline is:

The planes that were flown into the towers were probably remote-controlled and passenger-less. Any passengers that were actually on the "hijacked" aircraft were either part of the show and are keeping quiet in their new identities or were disposed of in some other method. If you're blowing up 1000s in the WTC, you won't have much trouble adding even a couple hundred more to the body count. The original aircraft, if not just an invention, would also have been dealt with quietly.

As I've said previously, these are theories and don't have to be proven. It's only the OS that must be water-tight.

(not surprisingly, many of the links on these pages are broken. They were written some years ago.)

9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes

What Really Happened? A Critical Analysis of
Carol Valentine's "Flight of the Bumble Planes" Hypothesis

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

The only theory that HAS to hold water is the OS and there's plenty of proof that it doesn't.

Well, I guess this is where the truth non-movement kind of falls apart. The lack of any "proof", other than personal incredulity, that the OS does not hold water as it were.

Nothing has ever been presented by any person or group that will contradict any significant part of the "official story". Oh, there has been many an attempt but usually those attempts fall flat because these people are generally confused about what is accepted as "proof".

You'd like to think that this was true but I fail to see how anyone can hold this opinion unless they only accept as fact what is spoonfed to them by the government and the MSM. As mentioned in my earlier post, David Ray Griffin does an excellent job of highlighting many of the holes in the OS in 9/11: LET'S GET EMPIRICAL. He doesn't have to show all the holes because even one should be enough.

I take your point about what is accepted as proof. As a layperson in all of the applicable fields, I cannot confirm the validity of any of the facts surrounding these events. As a "juror" listening to the evidence and forming an opinion on it, I'm quite capable of weighing up the arguments and deciding what I believe to be "proven."

What I want is for myself or people like me to be given an opportunity to do this for real with a real investigation and any legal proceedings arising from it. Anyone who would prefer to sweep this under the carpet and forget about it is just asking for it to happen again.

From Patriots Question 9/11
Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

reply to post by 911thology


According to the documentary on 9/11, Loose Change, United 93 landed with 200 passengers. There were no bodies discovered at the Shanksville site. I believe United 93 landed in Ohio, safely.

If you haven't watched Loose Change, do so. Very informative.

Originally posted by logicalthinking
Fidel Castro fascinated by book on Bilderberg Club



news.yahoo.com...

I read about Castro and the Bilderberg book. Guess he's disappointed he wasn't invited to join. Hugo Chavez is also reportedly reading a similar book!

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Originally posted by dragnet53
and if you believe he did it all by himself without some help then I have a bridge to sell you.

Hello dragnet.

I don't believe Bin Laden acted alone, and I never said I thought that he did. I stated that perhaps he and Al Qaeda did it. You have to remember that before all of this happened, anybody could still hijack a plane. Have any planes been hijacked in the US since 9-11?

You can keep the bridge, I really don't have any use for it other than to drive over it. They are usually old and falling apart, and even if they are new, they cost a fortune to maintain. And if you want to charge toll to make some money, you have to hire operators to make change and collect dollar bills. And then you get taxed to death on top of all that..............

[edit on 21-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Watch Loose Change on YouTube ... see who is responsible for 9/11 and it ain't Bin Laden.

Originally posted by JohnJasper



The planes that were flown into the towers were probably remote-controlled and passenger-less. Any passengers that were actually on the "hijacked" aircraft were either part of the show and are keeping quiet in their new identities or were disposed of in some other method. If you're blowing up 1000s in the WTC, you won't have much trouble adding even a couple hundred more to the body count. The original aircraft, if not just an invention, would also have been dealt with quietly.

Why bother taking the passengers off? Why risk having hundreds of people who might suddenly decide that actually they don't want their new lives and want to go back to their old ones? And if you're killing them, why bother? Why not just let them die?

As I've said previously, these are theories and don't have to be proven.

But if you can't come up with something that is at least plausible then it deserves to be chucked out. I'm fine with people thinking about stuff, playing with theories, but when they are so obviously unlikely - to the point where they are nigh on impossible - then it's time to stop bothering with them.

You're wrong about the "OS" having to be watertight. It never could be. For a start it doesn't exist in a single form, so inconsistencies are inevitable. And the out and out "truth" is never attainable anyway. Take another historical event, one on which there is almost no debate about what happened, and there will still be things that are unknown or up for discussion.

If you're looking for an "OS" that is watertight, and your only alternative is "Trutherism", then you're setting up a false dichotomy to begin with. There is a middle ground - that the OS is flawed, but that there was no inside job.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why bother taking the passengers off? Why risk having hundreds of people who might suddenly decide that actually they don't want their new lives and want to go back to their old ones? And if you're killing them, why bother? Why not just let them die?

Sorry but there's no point discussing this with you until you've read the source documents. However, I'm more than happy to discuss feasibility of any of the points once you know what they are. I only provided the "bottom line" summary to give anyone interested an idea of what they would find.

If you're looking for an "OS" that is watertight, and your only alternative is "Trutherism", then you're setting up a false dichotomy to begin with. There is a middle ground - that the OS is flawed, but that there was no inside job.

Trutherism? It apparently means "being unwilling to ignore the fundamental laws of physics and any evidence that contradicts the official government story of the 9/11 attacks." Well, it looks like I'm a victim of Trutherism myself. I will happily stand shoulder to shoulder with the all of the other Trutherists demanding a full accounting of the events of 9/11.

reply to post by NellahB

There were no bodies discovered at the Shanksville site.

Really? Well then I guess we will have to be satisfied with the thousands of body parts that were found and DNA matched to the registered passengers on Flight 93. And the flight data recorder that confirms Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. And the tons of airplane debris. And the radar data. And the phone calls from the passengers. And the cockpit voice recorder. And the....well you get the idea.

And by the way, "loose change" is a documentary about 9/11 the same way "The Land Before Time" is a documentary about paleontology.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by NellahB

 

There were no bodies discovered at the Shanksville site.

Really? Well then I guess we will have to be satisfied with the thousands of body parts that were found and DNA matched to the registered passengers on Flight 93. And the flight data recorder that confirms Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. And the tons of airplane debris. And the radar data. And the phone calls from the passengers. And the cockpit voice recorder. And the....well you get the idea.

And by the way, "loose change" is a documentary about 9/11 the same way "The Land Before Time" is a documentary about paleontology.

Er, how does the finding of body parts prove that the plane that crashed was Flight 93? You are begging the question. If a surrogate plane was in the air, confused as Flight 93, the plotters could have added dead bodies to it, knowing that the body parts would never be identified after the plane was blown to smithereens, as was planned. As for your claim that DNA matched that of the registered passengers, did they, then, all give a specimen before they got on board? LOL!This claim is totally bogus and could be part of the cover-up of lies. Hardly the rigorous proof you uncritically think it is! As for the flight data recorder confirming Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, all it confirmed was that some plane crashed there. Not necessarily Flight 93.

The tons of airplane debris"? You mean these bits and pieces?!:
www.youtube.com...

The phone calls are not proof that they were made from Flight 93, especially now we know from the FBI that Barbara Olson's call to her husband was never received, despite his lying that he spoke to her. The calls are analyzed and seriously discredited here:
physics911.net...

I could go on, but you get the idea.......

[edit on 21-8-2010 by micpsi]

My father and I were watching the live news as it was reported on that day. We both remember the news program showing a map of Air Force 1 and it's 'wing' jets, how it was diverted, and Flight 93. They showed jets that were going to intercept it. Next thing we heard was the story of how the passengers tried to gain control. One of the wives was with the President at a dinner, with the media present, a movie came out, etc. It all just seemed like a cover-up. I recognize that this is a very sensitive topic and I mean no disrespect to the families or loved ones. We both believed it had been shot down. The map never appeared on the news again.

There were dozens, if not hundreds, of reports on 9/11 from the media worldwide about what was going on, and many opf those reports have been silently "recovered" by the intelligence services, never to see the light of day again, in view of the "offiial" reasons for 9/.11 and the "official" version of events. I wish we had of had multiple tuner PVRs back then - I would have recorded media coverage from the entire day.

I too, remember them saying that Flight 93 had been shot down to prevent it from hitting the Capitol building, and it's a stated part of US Air Defense policy that any flight deemed to be a threat to the Capitol, White House, or any of a number of locations around the USA will be shot down once it has been determined it's on an irreversible course of action.

It is also a stated fact that they will try and do this over an unpopulated area, before the target vehicle reaches any heavily populated cities where debris might fall and kill more people on the ground. Hence, the "crash" in an empty field in Pennsylvania, miles away from any populated areas.

I also still happen to believe that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. For me, the most telling evidence is the "lack of evidence" from all the street cameras along the route that the plane was supposed to have taken into the Pentagon.

If there were so many street cameras covering the approach, why don't they realease the video of the plane coming in to quell all those "truthers" out there? Oh, that's right, because THEY DON'T HAVE ANY VIDEO SHOWING THIS, because it NEVER HAPPENED the way the offical version says it did.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by babybunnies]

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

i have a question to ask how would one find out from the ordnance depot that a ordnance was indeed used. What i am getting at, if flight 93 was shot down, would there not be records of spent/ replaced ordnance? if so were would they be?

that is a good question.

the logs from the aircraft's assigned station's munitions squadron would have this information. due to national security concerns, this information would not be provided to the public, if we are in some measure of marshal law, i think.

one could contact the base, and request this information from the public relations office of that base.

you would more than likely be investigated for formally requesting such documents of a classified nature.

this is not common knowledge to most, but just because one holds a high security clearance, does not make all information that falls into that classication known to the government employee.

it only means that (need to know basis) the information at that security clearance which is pertinent to one's job description responsibilities is made known to the military employee.

i have held, and still do, a security clearance level, and have passed numerous security background checks.

why?

because i was a firefighter, and access to secure locations (buildings, bases, and aircraft) were pertinent to my job.

hard to fight a fire on a building when you don't have the security clearance to get those hoses close enough to put out the flames, or enter to save people.

example:
also, since Air Force One frequents nellis afb, it was important for the nellis fire department to be acquanted with Air Force One. And, believe it or not, yes, one does need a security clearance to step foot on Air Force One.

that training was interesting to say the least, and an eye opener to me.

as a firefighter it is not acceptable to place one life as not equal to another life.

but, we were trained to find the president first, and egress the president first, before anyone. which does make sense, a nation in mourning after loosing a president in a fire would probably not make for good news.

hope this helps,
et

reply to post by JohnJasper


Okay, well, good luck. You're going to wait a long time.

And really - take on board what I wrote about the OS. It's vital to realise that the creation of the myth of a necessarily "watertight OS" is a technique that the TM uses to avoid intellectual rigour and proper argument.

But as I say, best of luck.

reply to post by micpsi

Er, how does the finding of body parts prove that the plane that crashed was Flight 93? You are begging the question. If a surrogate plane was in the air, confused as Flight 93, the plotters could have added dead bodies to it, knowing that the body parts would never be identified after the plane was blown to smithereens, as was planned. As for your claim that DNA matched that of the registered passengers, did they, then, all give a specimen before they got on board? LOL!This claim is totally bogus and could be part of the cover-up of lies. Hardly the rigorous proof you uncritically think it is! As for the flight data recorder confirming Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, all it confirmed was that some plane crashed there. Not necessarily Flight 93.

I was going to respond to this in some detail, but obviously you need to do a little "learin'' about DNA and how it is used to identify persons. Actually, when you put together the flight manifest of passengers, the fact that human remains of those passengers were found at the site and positively identified, then that pretty much closes the loop on the nonsense that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, PA with all souls on board. The only way to re-open that is to start claiming that everyone involved in the collection and identification process is "in on it" and the burden of proving that assertion falls on the person who makes it. You.