Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

Quag · Sep 28, 2017

pinqy said:
Why? That's a needlessly complicated plan.

Logic and trutherism dont mix

zyzygy · Sep 28, 2017

Quag said:
Logic and trutherism dont mix

If anyone in the Bush administration had suggested such a plan the men in white coats and a straitjacket would have been summoned.

Bum · Sep 28, 2017

Northern Light said:
The radar thing is stupid... but I'm curious, does the U.S. have some kind of directed energy technology that could do this, from the ground or from outer space? I've always wondered. It seems like we're at a point in time when it wouldn't be hard to invent a laser beam that could blow up a plane.

We already have DEW's in the inventory, though not actually deployed as yet.

A couple issues with the used of DEW's, however;

1. Must have line of sight to the target.

2. Not an ideal space based weapon.

3. Must have clear skies.

Thermal blooming prevents DEW's from being useful on an orbital platform in space, or as a ground based system with cloudy/foggy weather....a laser looses huge amounts of heat and energy when fired through atmosphere, smoke, clouds, or fog..which renders it ineffective as a weapon.

We were testing an airborne version of a chemical laser about a decade ago if I recall.....but its big size required that it be fitted into a 747...not something to use if you want to be stealthy.

HowardBThiname · Sep 28, 2017

camlok said:
All the crashes were faked or done with something other than what we were told.

When one hears that not one airplane part, out of roughly 4 million parts for the four alleged aircraft, was recovered but two passports and a red bandana were, people with an ounce of sense ought to go, "WTF?!?!".

There aren't very many sensible people around these days.

Oh, there was one very large part found, an engine from the alleged WTC2 plane. Trouble is, it wasn't an engine that was installed in the alleged 767-200, the alleged 767-200 that was alleged to have flown into WTC2.

When one hears something this impossible for the USOCT, people with the tiny measure of sense god gave a gnat, ought to go, "WTF?!?!".

There aren't very many sensible people around these days.

That's crazy talk. A close friend is (was at the time) a professional witness for the FAA at the time of the attacks. He did not visit the other areas, but he did examine the Pentagon site. It was absolutely an airliner that hit the Pentagon and he explained a lot of what he saw.

I've known this guy for years and he's examined hundreds of plane crashes, he knows his stuff. No way he'd be fooled. An airliner hit the Pentagon, no question. And intelligent people really have no reason to think airliners did not also hit the towers.

zyzygy · Sep 28, 2017

Is Camlock a no-planer? He never actually puts forward a theory.

Quag · Sep 28, 2017

zyzygy said:
Is Camlock a no-planer? He never actually puts forward a theory.

yes he is

zyzygy · Sep 28, 2017

Quag said:
yes he is

So that's why he never answers questions about the passengers. No-planers never do. I didn't realize that he was that far down the twoofer rabbit hole. It will be energy beam weapons next.

camlok · Sep 28, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
That's crazy talk. A close friend is (was at the time) a professional witness for the FAA at the time of the attacks. He did not visit the other areas, but he did examine the Pentagon site. It was absolutely an airliner that hit the Pentagon and he explained a lot of what he saw.

I've known this guy for years and he's examined hundreds of plane crashes, he knows his stuff. No way he'd be fooled. An airliner hit the Pentagon, no question. And intelligent people really have no reason to think airliners did not also hit the towers.

I think that Colonel Nelson also knows his stuff, and the substantial difference between him and your friend is the the good colonel exhibits the fortitude to go public, to put himself out there. No disrespect intended, Howard, but you do understand the difference between expert testimony and anecdotal hearsay, don't you?

Here are some snippets from an article. Do read the whole thing.

===============

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Positive Clue to Aircraft Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
Originally posted on Physics911.net

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As shown below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the government’s official storyline if it were based upon facts supported by physical evidence, but that has not been the case.

...

Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

...

Conclusion
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/col-george-nelson

camlok · Sep 28, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
That's crazy talk. A close friend is (was at the time) a professional witness for the FAA at the time of the attacks. He did not visit the other areas, but he did examine the Pentagon site. It was absolutely an airliner that hit the Pentagon and he explained a lot of what he saw.

If it is crazy talk that not one serial numbered part from any of the four alleged airliners from 911 has been put forward as evidence then it should be amazingly easy to illustrate that, indeed, serial numbered parts have been offered up as evidence.

Come on, Howard, if a red bandana and two "hijacker" passports survived those crashes, surely these parts which Col. Nelson describes as,

"Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible."

would have survived, doncha figger?

HowardBThiname · Sep 29, 2017

camlok said:
I think that Colonel Nelson also knows his stuff, and the substantial difference between him and your friend is the the good colonel exhibits the fortitude to go public, to put himself out there. No disrespect intended, Howard, but you do understand the difference between expert testimony and anecdotal hearsay, don't you?

Here are some snippets from an article. Do read the whole thing.

===============

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Positive Clue to Aircraft Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
Originally posted on Physics911.net

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As shown below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the government’s official storyline if it were based upon facts supported by physical evidence, but that has not been the case.

...

Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

...

Conclusion
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/col-george-nelson

I don't know your expert. I do know my long-time friend who, before he retired as a professional FAA witness, examined hundreds of airplane crashes, both large and small, and his opinion was taken as an expert opinion in many, many crash cases. It was his life career. He wasn't in the military, but he knew crash sites. As I said, he did not visit the towers or the other crash site, but he was at the Pentagon. If he said it was clear an airliner hit the Pentagon, I don't question that it did.

The wreckage in the Pentagon was not obliterated, according to my friend, it was an obvious crash site.

I can't speak further to the issue, because I wasn't there. I just know what I've learned in conversation and I have no reason to doubt my friend's integrity. He's not some military guy who flew a plane -- he worked his whole career as a FAA professional witness -- one of the highest positions they have for crash examination.

The Sgt. also sounds knowledgeable, but did he examine the Pentagon site?

HowardBThiname · Sep 29, 2017

camlok said:
If it is crazy talk that not one serial numbered part from any of the four alleged airliners from 911 has been put forward as evidence then it should be amazingly easy to illustrate that, indeed, serial numbered parts have been offered up as evidence.

Come on, Howard, if a red bandana and two "hijacker" passports survived those crashes, surely these parts which Col. Nelson describes as,

"Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible."

would have survived, doncha figger?

From what I understand -- there was obvious signs of the wreckage, even after the fire. I think the problem is that some of the folks that looked on - didn't know what they were looking at. That's probably where these rumors started.

Thoreau72 · Sep 29, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
From what I understand -- there was obvious signs of the wreckage, even after the fire. I think the problem is that some of the folks that looked on - didn't know what they were looking at. That's probably where these rumors started.

Yes, at the Pentagon there were obvious signs of wreckage, but the trouble is that the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 with passengers onboard. Moreover, 5 years later when the government finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery. You never heard it on NBC, and never will, but those familiar with FDRs showed it to be a forgery. It was not even assigned to an airframe.

Why would that be?

Quag · Sep 29, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
Yes, at the Pentagon there were obvious signs of wreckage, but the trouble is that the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 with passengers onboard. Moreover, 5 years later when the government finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery. You never heard it on NBC, and never will, but those familiar with FDRs showed it to be a forgery. It was not even assigned to an airframe.

Why would that be?

Actually the drbris was 100% consistent and the FDR wasnt a forged.
Just more lies from our resident "flight instructor"

Quag · Sep 29, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
From what I understand -- there was obvious signs of the wreckage, even after the fire. I think the problem is that some of the folks that looked on - didn't know what they were looking at. That's probably where these rumors started.

There are some people who do knwo what they are looking at but realize lying about it can be profitable. Hence the proliferation of CT sites that sell DA TRUTH! and other select merchandise.

mike2810 · Sep 29, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
Yes, at the Pentagon there were obvious signs of wreckage, but the trouble is that the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 with passengers onboard. Moreover, 5 years later when the government finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery. You never heard it on NBC, and never will, but those familiar with FDRs showed it to be a forgery. It was not even assigned to an airframe.

Why would that be?

Please provide the sources to back up your statements.
- 'the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 "
'finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery"

camlok · Sep 29, 2017

Quag said:
Actually the drbris was 100% consistent and the FDR wasnt a forged.
Just more lies from our resident "flight instructor"

Notice the quag evidence, Howard, exactly the type of evidence that there has always been for the USOCT, ie. none.

camlok · Sep 29, 2017

mike2810 said:
Please provide the sources to back up your statements.
- 'the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 "
'finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery"

mike's typical song and dance routine. You provide evidence for the USOCT, mike, something you have never ever done. Remember, you are the guys with the rock solid theory so why do you all continue to only shuck and jive?

camlok · Sep 29, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
From what I understand -- there was obvious signs of the wreckage, even after the fire. I think the problem is that some of the folks that looked on - didn't know what they were looking at. That's probably where these rumors started.

Howard, not one serial numbered part has ever been produced as evidence for any of the alleged 911 planes, let alone the Pentagon one.

Why would the FBI have even considered going around and confiscating videos surrounding the Pentagon, seizing private property, for which there has been none of the typical outrage that there always is for such government actions?

Were all the many Pentagon cameras being repaired that day?

You know, one or two anomalies in the US story might be excused but there is no evidence for the whole USGOCT. Just note how vacant, how empty of evidence are the usual suspects posts, these supporters of the USGOCT.

Notice how these USGOCT supporters just rant and rage, call people names, ... .

HowardBThiname · Sep 29, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
Yes, at the Pentagon there were obvious signs of wreckage, but the trouble is that the wreckage was not remotely consistent with a 757 with passengers onboard. Moreover, 5 years later when the government finally provided the data from the FDR, it turned out to be a forgery. You never heard it on NBC, and never will, but those familiar with FDRs showed it to be a forgery. It was not even assigned to an airframe.

Why would that be?

A wreck that will generate that kind of fire is most likely going to incinerate most human remains in the area. However, all but five passengers on the airliner that hit the Pentagon were eventually identified from DNA taken from fragments.

How did their DNA get there if they weren't all on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

I never really understood why some folks would ignore evidence in order to propagate wild conspiracy theories. As to your question -- I don't know. I don't follow that sort of thing. All I know is that most of the people on the plane were identified via DNA and my friend, a long-time expert witness for the FAA, said it was clear that the airliner hit the Pentagon. I think the official stories about the towers are also probably correct, but I have no personal knowledge about those.

camlok · Sep 29, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
A wreck that will generate that kind of fire is most likely going to incinerate most human remains in the area. However, all but five passengers on the airliner that hit the Pentagon were eventually identified from DNA taken from fragments.

How did their DNA get there if they weren't all on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

How come not one serial numbered part of roughly 4 million parts was brought forward as evidence for the alleged planes, Howard? Have you ever seen a crash where all the plane parts are gathered and reconstructed?

I never really understood why some folks would ignore evidence in order to propagate wild conspiracy theories.

Me neither, so that begs the question, why do so many people believe in the USOCT when there is no evidence, when there is so much evidence that says the fable is impossible? The US government story is the wild conspiracy and the folks who question it are scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who are not at all wild conspiracy theorists.

As to your question -- I don't know. I don't follow that sort of thing. All I know is that most of the people on the plane were identified via DNA and my friend, a long-time expert witness for the FAA, said it was clear that the airliner hit the Pentagon. I think the official stories about the towers are also probably correct, but I have no personal knowledge about those.

We only have your anecdotal story of a friend who says such and such. You haven't even provided what he actually said, how he was involved in any investigation, if at all.

How is it that alleged 911 aircraft were found to be still airborne after the time of the alleged crashes?

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH

How is it, Howard, that the 767-200 that was alleged to have hit WTC2 and had one of its engines fly thru the tower and land on Murray Street is not an engine that was ever installed in the 767-200s that UA flew? This means that the UA175 that the US government says hit WTC2 was not the Boeing airliner that hit WTC2.

HowardBThiname · Sep 29, 2017

camlok said:
We only have your anecdotal story of a friend who says such and such. You haven't even provided what he actually said, how he was involved in any investigation, if at all.

How is it that alleged 911 aircraft were found to be still airborne after the time of the alleged crashes?

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH

How is it, Howard, that the 767-200 that was alleged to have hit WTC2 and had one of its engines fly thru the tower and land on Murray Street is not an engine that was ever installed in the 767-200s that UA flew? This means that the UA175 that the US government says hit WTC2 was not the Boeing airliner that hit WTC2.

Look, I'm not interested in any of that ( I have no answers for any of that) but I trust my friend to tell me the truth. You don't have to. I told you he didn't visit the towers so he didn't have anything to say about them, but I got the idea that he believed the official story there as well.

I also know that if the DNA of most of the passengers was identified on fragments that it had to get there somehow, and so we have an Occam's razor kind of thing.

camlok · Sep 29, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Look, I'm not interested in any of that ( I have no answers for any of that) but I trust my friend to tell me the truth. You don't have to. I told you he didn't visit the towers so he didn't have anything to say about them, but I got the idea that he believed the official story there as well.

But "any of that", Howard, is exactly what determines the truth of any given situation. That is how evidence works. A plane still flying after you have been told it has crashed should cause any thinking human to consider that someone is lying.

Again, you haven't revealed much of anything of what your friend actually revealed or his reasons for feeling as he did.

I also know that if the DNA of most of the passengers was identified on fragments that it had to get there somehow, and so we have an Occam's razor kind of thing.

Indeed we do have some puzzling things to figure out. But that door swings both ways. The presence of nanothermite, a newly developed USA military ONLY super explosive should not have been found in WTC dust. That makes the USOCT highly suspect. The molten [2,750F/vaporized [4,900+F] steel, molten molybdenum [4700F], vaporized lead [3,180F] iron microspheres [2,800F], a by product of thermite/thermate/nanothermite reactions point to the total impossibility of the USOCT being even plausible.

That's how evidence works. The overwhelming accumulation of evidence shows the USOCT is a fable.

Thoreau72 · Sep 30, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
A wreck that will generate that kind of fire is most likely going to incinerate most human remains in the area. However, all but five passengers on the airliner that hit the Pentagon were eventually identified from DNA taken from fragments.

How did their DNA get there if they weren't all on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

I never really understood why some folks would ignore evidence in order to propagate wild conspiracy theories. As to your question -- I don't know. I don't follow that sort of thing. All I know is that most of the people on the plane were identified via DNA and my friend, a long-time expert witness for the FAA, said it was clear that the airliner hit the Pentagon. I think the official stories about the towers are also probably correct, but I have no personal knowledge about those.

I don't know about you Howard, but I did my time in the US Army, with a year being in the Mekong Delta. Shortly after I came back home and was discharged from the Army, Daniel Ellsberg released a large amount of TOP SECRET papers from the Pentagon where he was working. They became known as the Pentagon Papers, and revealed that the Pentagon had been engaged in "purposeful withholding and distortion of facts" according to the Congressional Report. Purposeful withholding and distortion of facts regarding its conduct in the Vietnam War.

What those papers revealed to the public were consistent with what I as an individual had learned during that year in the Mekong Delta, and my time in service in total.

So why, Howard, should I believe a damn word the Pentagon had to say about DNA or anything else related to the events that day? What compelling reason do you find for me to believe a building full of known liars?

Forged FDR information, no debris consistent with a 757, an impossible aeronautical maneuver, impossible cell phone calls and much more all work against the official story. Sorry, I just cannot follow your lead on this. The official story is a bright and shining lie.

If we apply Occam's Razor to this situation, it would be something like "the reason that no evidence or facts support the official narrative is that the official narrative is false".

mike2810 · Sep 30, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I don't know about you Howard, but I did my time in the US Army, with a year being in the Mekong Delta. Shortly after I came back home and was discharged from the Army, Daniel Ellsberg released a large amount of TOP SECRET papers from the Pentagon where he was working. They became known as the Pentagon Papers, and revealed that the Pentagon had been engaged in "purposeful withholding and distortion of facts" according to the Congressional Report. Purposeful withholding and distortion of facts regarding its conduct in the Vietnam War.

What those papers revealed to the public were consistent with what I as an individual had learned during that year in the Mekong Delta, and my time in service in total.

So why, Howard, should I believe a damn word the Pentagon had to say about DNA or anything else related to the events that day? What compelling reason do you find for me to believe a building full of known liars?

Forged FDR information, no debris consistent with a 757, an impossible aeronautical maneuver, impossible cell phone calls and much more all work against the official story. Sorry, I just cannot follow your lead on this. The official story is a bright and shining lie.

If we apply Occam's Razor to this situation, it would be something like "the reason that no evidence or facts support the official narrative is that the official narrative is false".

Why should someone believe AE911T, Pilot4911T, CIT, VeteransToday, DRGriffen, Prager, etc.? Especially when different positions are taken regarding the events of 9/11/2001.

I do agree with one item with you. One should do research and make up their own minds.
Your post gives good insight on why you post the way you do.

Quag · Sep 30, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I don't know about you Howard, but I did my time in the US Army, with a year being in the Mekong Delta. Shortly after I came back home and was discharged from the Army, Daniel Ellsberg released a large amount of TOP SECRET papers from the Pentagon where he was working. They became known as the Pentagon Papers, and revealed that the Pentagon had been engaged in "purposeful withholding and distortion of facts" according to the Congressional Report. Purposeful withholding and distortion of facts regarding its conduct in the Vietnam War.

What those papers revealed to the public were consistent with what I as an individual had learned during that year in the Mekong Delta, and my time in service in total.

So why, Howard, should I believe a damn word the Pentagon had to say about DNA or anything else related to the events that day? What compelling reason do you find for me to believe a building full of known liars?

Forged FDR information, no debris consistent with a 757, an impossible aeronautical maneuver, impossible cell phone calls and much more all work against the official story. Sorry, I just cannot follow your lead on this. The official story is a bright and shining lie.

If we apply Occam's Razor to this situation, it would be something like "the reason that no evidence or facts support the official narrative is that the official narrative is false".

FDR wasnt forged, a CTer interpreted the data wrong. The debris was consistant a jsut CTer lied and claimed it wasnt. The manoeuver wasnt impossible in fact it was poorly done and required very little skill. Cell phone calls werent impossible you just dont know squat about aviation

Problem is all your "evidence" is actually lies you were told by CT sites trying to make $$$ from a tragedy.

Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.