Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I guess its possible since the building was already wired, but I think they were going to implode it no matter what to destroy evidence of the 911 command center on the 23rd floor, along with a lot of other evidence in all those 3 letter agencies that had offices there. What we saw on that morning was some high-tech stuff, mixed with a little black magic. There were many blatant Satanic images that appeared in that smoke. Of course the LIAR camp will have a field day with that but who cares. They're earth-bound lemmings ignorant of metaphysical science.

In the public eye, WTC7 was an insignificant building. I think it would be tough to explain why the Muslims would target building 7. A much better theory would be that its intended target was the Capitol. That would have taken out the Legislative Branch and allowed the illiterate buffoon to declare himself dictator. I feel pretty confident that the Capitol was wired too... just like Oklahoma City and the Pentagon where only a portion of the building needed to be taken out to accomplish the desired effect. As for the three towers, they had to go completely.

reply to post by LaBTop

Originally posted by Reheat
If UA 93 was headed for NY why did the pilots have Reagon National VOR tuned into the VOR receiver? Long detour, huh?

Originally posted by LaBTop
LT : As usual, you did not read what I wrote. They manually shut off the autopilot at 09:58 AM. And entered manually a new course. Which course was held steadily for more than 3 minutes. Check it in the FDR.

What you write is mostly garbage exactly as this is. They did not manually set a new course, they turned to the NE momentarily and began altitude deviations in an obvious effort to disrupt passengers attempting to enter the cockpit. No new VOR was set and no course was entered. After that momentary deviation they then turned back to the SE headed toward Washington again just prior to the descent to a crash. Get the story straight, truther.

Originally posted by Reheat
How can a digital FDR with some 24 hours of previously recorded flight be faked or modified to show a different altitude than recorded?

Originally posted by LaBTop
LT : Don't play dumb again. I showed you already long ago how the French government together with the top of Air Bus Company covered up the initial software glitch that caused one of the first demonstration flights of the then new Air Bus plane to crash at the end of the runway because the software did not allow that the pilot, who tried to pull the plane up after a low pass, suddenly found out that whatever he tried, the plane did not react anymore to all his inputs. They said it was a pilot error, and falsified the FDR that was found in the woods.
We proved that by using a photo from a newspaper that showed that FDR box when found, and compared it to the FDR shown in court. They were different, One had horizontal stripes, the other diagonal stripes around that box. Air Bus crash at Mulhouse, France.

It's quite obvious who's dumb here. The French FDR was recorded on ANALOGUE Media (a tape) whereas the UA 93 FDR was on digital media (HD type media). There is a distinctive difference in the ability to modify one, but not the other, truther.

Originally posted by Reheat
Why are there no other aircraft shown on MULTIPLE radar sites in the vicinity of UA 93. F-16's are not stealth aircraft. How did one get close enough to shoot it down and not show up on MULTIPLE radars.

Originally posted by LaBTop
LT : Just told you that an FDR can be falsified. A RADES radar report can also be falsified, in fact quite easily.
Family of mine flew his whole life in an AWAC. Radar officer. May not talk to anyone about his military knowledge regarding this. Did so, and emigrated to South America. To be sure that he did not got in trouble with his former job. You will not believe the story about that circling F-16, so why bother to react at all? That pilot wanted to look into that drone's cockpit, and that's why he circled. And then he tried a few circles more, because he could not believe at first what he saw, an empty cockpit all that time. Thus he shot it down, just as you would have done in those circumstances, as the somewhat aggressive type of pilot you show yourself off in this forum all the time.

Most of what you write is WRONG, and I'm correcting you just like now... I didn't mention RADES Data at all. I said multiple radars, which are available independent of the RADES data and they all do not show any other aircraft in the vicinity of UA 93. Any F-16 in the area is a figment of your imagination. There is nothing on radar and nothing on any ATC transmissions. Aircraft don't just fly around in controlled airspace without a controller wondering what it is and taking action. Particularly a fast mover. Stop inventing crap and stick to proven facts, truther.

Originally posted by Reheat How was DNA recovered and analyzed by the local coroner if it was a drone?

Originally posted by LaBTopLT : You did not read my text again. Or it could be a mild form of Korzakov syndrome, caused by a long habit of drinking too much alcohol. In such case you tend to forget especially things you just read. Seek help from a specialist is my advice to such people.
It was not the drone that crashed, it was the real plane filled with passengers that got shot down. The drone was flying at 4,500 meters high with its UAL 93 mimicking transponder on, already on its way to New York. Fully visible on radar. UAL 93 was flying at 100 feet high, that's 30 meters above the ground, to avoid radar registration, with its transponder off. On its way to its secret landing and debarking destination. The planners were probably not so bloodthirsty spillovers of human life as we supposed them to be. (continued)

edit on 5-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

(Continued)

Originally posted by LaBTop (Continued)
have kept themselves to the 1960's Northwoods scenarios, trying to keep the victim counts as low as could be.

It not surprising that I can't keep up with the rubbish. It is convoluted and totally imaginary. Where did the drone go? Why does it not show up on radar?

*accusing someone of being on drugs (alcohol is a drug is against the T & C here. You have been reported and if you do it again, you will be reported again*

Originally posted by Reheat
Where's that debunk of my stuff you've been working on?

Originally posted by LaBTopLT : I have contemplated if I would return to these forums ever, based on the growing increase of disrespect and use of plain lies by exactly the people like you are a fine example of, half a year ago.
But I prepared that rebuttal of your signature line, as I promised you, half a year ago already.

I withheld posting it, because in those months I lost totally interest to post here, just look at the vitriol and angst dripping from so many posts here lately.
I never saw any solid argumentation from your hand on my proposed AAL 77 flight path, north of the CITGO gas station. I'll see if you can now.
It's quite long and I shall post it now.

You need to get rid of that dog who keeps eating your homework. It's caused repeated problems for you.

You are a blatant unmitigated LIAR. I totally refuted your NOC garbage based on turn radius alone, multiple times. The fact that you don't understand it is obvious, but no excuse. truther.

Originally posted by LaBTop
LT : It's clear to every moderator and reader here by now, that your use of the term "truther" is only meant as the meanest possible insult. And as I mentioned before, they let you get away with it, time and time again. So be it, it is however a sad sign of dishonesty for a forum of increasing fading interest for many genuine 911 researchers. I am however proud to be a genuine long time 911 researcher of the real historical truth of that day and the whole period leading to it. Who will admit when he is wrong, also when proven wrong by opponents.
Let's see how you maintain yourself in the coming confrontations here.
You have never proved me wrong, au contraire, you still use slander and plain lies to find some form of self-esteem back.

Well, it's quite obvious you are a "truther". If you take offense to that maybe you should stop acting like one. You've said that you would admit when you're wrong before and it is a blatant lie. You've been proven wrong multiple times and never correct it. You just disappear for awhile in the apparent hope that everyone will forget. I have never lost self-esteem, especially because of you. You're delusionary again.. Seek help!

What you write is mostly garbage exactly as this is. (insult) They did not manually set a new course, they turned to the NE momentarily and began altitude deviations in an obvious effort to disrupt passengers attempting to enter the cockpit. No new VOR was set and no course was entered. After that momentary deviation they then turned back to the SE headed toward Washington again just prior to the descent to a crash. Get the story straight, truther. (insult)

Why should they had to set a new VOR when flying a drone remotely and manually on a known by them, course to New York.
Btw, you avoid that I am proposing that according to the recovered FDR, a drone carrying that FDR must have flown to New York at 1,450 meters (1.4 KM ! ) high, and the real UAL 93 had dived to the ground and flew further at tree top level (30 METERS ! ), as witnessed by Viola, her sister, Mr Petersen and the others at the junction just 1.5 km from the crash site. And that they later used the FDR from the drone and connected a piece from the shot down real UAL 93 to the end of that data. It is called Cut and Paste, just as you do so often yourself here. That FDR is just a kind of memory stick where the plane's probes send data to. You make it seem as if it is very difficult to impossible to alter an FDR. Its childish easy for an IT person. Erase what you don't like and replace it with the other data from the real FDR

How else can the FDR show a plane at 1,450 meters above that junction? The NTSB animation online shows it also at that height at that exact spot. I wasted many posts on that subject, but you never answer posts which you can not answer. Just as you avoid this clear evidence of two planes at the same spot but at totally different heights above that junction which I laid before you in the last page. Read the reports from the Purbaughs at the scrapyard 300 meter from the crash also. They report the plane also much lower than the FDR, about 100 feet high !

From that willyloman link :

The time of these phone calls is also very important; 9:58 am… the same time Flight 93 made a course correction directly toward New York City. The “official story” uses the manufactured heroics to explain this all important heading change as well as the crash of Flight 93. Apparently during the struggle, whom ever was piloting the plane inadvertently changed course and then for some reason maintained that same heading, straight towards New York for the next 5-6 minutes until the plane finally veered off course and crashed in Shanksville.

That’s not very likely. More believable is the idea that after waiting just long enough for the buildings to have been hit and partially evacuated, Flight 93 was turned and header straight back to it’s real target, while still far enough away to give enough time for the buildings to “collapse” out of the way.

Just one minute after Flight 93 made its turn toward New York at 9:58am, the South Tower collapsed.

9:59:04 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center suddenly collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris quickly fills lower Manhattan.

10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

Thirty minutes after the south tower fell, Tower 1, the North Tower, met the same fate.

The seismic data added 3 more minutes flight time to UAL 93. The officially pushed crash time is 10:03 a.m.
If you thus add these 3 minutes to all the events as printed with there timestamps in this following New York Times drawing, based on what the 911 Commission at that time of print offered as real data, you have to add these 3 minutes to all these printed timestamps, and then suddenly the plane was definitely changing course exactly to Manhattan after the autopilot was disengaged. And flew more than 3 minutes on a steady course towards New York.
The OS tells us that then the passengers revolted. That is all quite impossible, when you look at the other drawing I linked to via my linked to threads at my two bottom page posts in the last page, the one from the New York Post.
With all those witnesses who placed UAL 93 much lower already, many minutes before it crashed.
And Viola, her sister and Mr Petersen all saw it so low.

It's quite obvious who's dumb here. The French FDR was recorded on ANALOGUE Media (a tape) whereas the UA 93 FDR was on digital media (HD type media). There is a distinctive difference in the ability to modify one, but not the other, truther.

An analog tape you have to dub-over on another tape, or cut pieces out and glue the remaining pieces together again, which is too obvious tampering. A digital recording falsifying as in newer FDR's is done just as if you use your computer, just cut, copy or paste. It's in essence just a memory stick. We had this same discussion already, and you know it.

reply to post by LaBTop


Cool story for delusional people bro... It might be different if you had some evidence from a credible source. All you have is another delusional nut case (named after a famous baseball player) who went to the area around Shanksville and interviewed people rendering his interpretation of what they said and witnessed. It has more holes in it than a minnow seine just as your crap does.

You need to find another hobby and get a life. You're not very good at this one....

reply to post by LaBTop

The seismic data added 3 more minutes flight time to UAL 93. The officially pushed crash time is 10:03 a.m. If you thus add these 3 minutes to all the events as printed with there timestamps in this following New York Times drawing, based on what the 911 Commission at that time of print offered as real data, you have to add these 3 minutes to all these printed timestamps, and then suddenly the plane was definitely changing course exactly to Manhattan after the autopilot was disengaged. And flew more than 3 minutes on a steady course towards New York. The OS tells us that then the passengers revolted. That is all quite impossible, when you look at the other drawing I linked to via my linked to threads at my two bottom page posts in the last page, the one from the New York Post. With all those witnesses who placed UAL 93 much lower already, many minutes before it crashed. And Viola, her sister and Mr Petersen all saw it so low.

Nah ...

An interesting take on the Shanksville crater:

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by boncho

 

well atleast your honest.

Boncho, it doesn't matter what happened to the plane (flight 93)

All that matters is it never made it to an intended target.

If it was the Cover for wtc7 blowing up, they lost their cover.

That's what you asked me, and I answered you.

Ok?


The reason I think it was shot down is rumsfeld saying it did.
Mix that with an article I read (looking for it) that had an airforce guy saying it was shot down, and even gave the base they flew out of.

edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

North Dakota, not sure of the base. Supposedly an AF outfit that called themselves the Happy Hooligans shot 93 down. Not sure if I believe that, but its what I was told. (haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe someone else has already posted this)

reply to post by frazzle


No they didn't shoot Flight 93 down

Here is account of the pilots and their actions on 9/11

Some of the unit were deployed to Langley as part of air defense duties, another pliot was sent from their home
base in Fargo ND to pick up the New York State OEM director, who was in Montana for a conference and fly
him back to Albany NY

www.allbaugh.us...

reply to post by thedman


Nice down home little story. Just like a beautiful North Dakota fall day!!

I put a lot of trust in the fellow who told me about the pilot and he was in a position to know how it went down, although as I said, I was never totally sure because neither one of us were actually there to witness it. Unfortunately we'll never know exactly what happened that day, but the evidence certainly isn't pointing to anything as cut and dried as they'd have us believe.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by thedman

 

Nice down home little story. Just like a beautiful North Dakota fall day!!

I put a lot of trust in the fellow who told me about the pilot and he was in a position to know how it went down, although as I said, I was never totally sure because neither one of us were actually there to witness it. Unfortunately we'll never know exactly what happened that day, but the evidence certainly isn't pointing to anything as cut and dried as they'd have us believe.

Are you one that will believe anything as long as it an alternative story?

Major (now Colonel) Rick Gibney of the North Dakota ANG at Fargo flew the NY OEM Director from Montana back to NY as Thedman just told you. That's why he got a non significant medal for his service on 9/11. Conspiracy Theory Web site turned this into the sensational story that he had shot down UA 93. It's a bunch of poppycock.

No indications of a shoot down were present.

- Radar from multiple sites shows no other aircraft in the vicinity of UA 93 when it went down. F-16's are not stealth aircraft.

- The crash pattern shows NO EVIDENCE of a shoot down. If the aircraft was shot with either a missile or guns it would knock pieces of the aircraft to the ground. Otherwise, there would not be enough damage to bring it down. This would result in a path of debris along the flight path from the direction the aircraft was flying SHORT of the actual crash. There was NO DEBRIS short (along the flight path) for UA 93. All debris was either in the immediate vicinity of the crash or downwind for some light debris blown by the wind.

- The flight data recorded showed a fully functioning aircraft up to the impact with the ground. No damage to any systems.

Now, balance those FACTS with the crap you've read or heard from conspiracy theory sites who want to sell you a t-shirt, not tell you the truth.

reply to post by Reheat


This is why I no longer participate on threads having to do with 9/11 and I regret even opening this thread (although the OP makes a lot of sense.)

I started seriously researching what happened on that day back in 2002 and kept going at it until 2008 when it became apparent that everyone had reached their conclusions and dynamite couldn't budge them from it whatever "story" they believed". I see no purpose in arguing it anymore.

In the end 9/11 was simply another perfect crime, like the assassination of John Kennedy. And both of these crimes changed America and Americans in extremely negative ways. That was, of course, the plan.

reply to post by frazzle

In the end 9/11 was simply another perfect crime, like the assassination of John Kennedy. And both of these crimes changed America and Americans in extremely negative ways. That was, of course, the plan.

I feel your frustration but I think it's a long way from the perfect crime, and more and more is being unraveled every day.

I don't think the country has changed much, if at all. We've been doing the same thing for about 250 years, we just have more advanced technology today. Same as it ever was.

This thread seems like hours of wasted time.....

Originally posted by dayve
This thread seems like hours of wasted time.....

Yes, as are all those threads that revolve around planes. It's impossible to prove a lie.

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by dayve
This thread seems like hours of wasted time.....

Yes, as are all those threads that revolve around planes. It's impossible to prove a lie.

Yes, I agree. That's why the "truth cult" has made no progress in nearly 11 years.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by dayve
This thread seems like hours of wasted time.....

Yes, as are all those threads that revolve around planes. It's impossible to prove a lie.

Yes, I agree. That's why the "truth cult" has made no progress in nearly 11 years.

Aw, that's 'cause you're hanging out here.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Reheat

 

(although the OP makes a lot of sense.)

It only makes sense because you didn't recognize the false misleading information in it.

- UA 93 was making a beeline toward Washington DC. That's why Cleveland ARTCC changed their destination (issued a new Flight Plan) to Reagan National AP (Washington National) with an estimated arrival time of 8:20 EDT.

- Both VOR receivers were tuned to Reagan National VOR for navigation. One of the VOR receivers was momentarily switched to Dulles IAP then back again because Reagan was still out of range.

- It only deviated to the NE during the short period where the FDR shows there was rapid climbs and descents and wing waggling in an obvious attempt to disrupt an attempted passenger access to the cockpit. Their intrusion attempt can be heard on the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) transcript. Shortly. at a later point the CVR also verifies a voice in Arabic suggesting to the other pilot to end the flight. The aircraft then entered a rapid descent and crashed in that abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA.

Now, in view of those FACTS, does the OP make sense?

Originally posted by ReheatNow, in view of those FACTS, does the OP make sense?

Of course it does.