Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

[cuban smokes]

does what this eyewitness is saying about "zapping the radar system" make any sense?

 

[Bum]

does what this eyewitness is saying about "zapping the radar system" make any sense?

No...not even a little bit of sense. Is this guy attempting to assert that search and targeting Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) system of a Fighter aircraft disrupted the electrical grid of his neighborhood?
Then flew into the direction of the sun to avoid detection?

There are so many holes in this premise I wouldn't know where to begin.

 

[Thoreau72]

I've heard that fellow's testimony before, and it seems rather vague to me. There is no evidence 93 was shot down, because it cannot be seen anywhere in that field, or in the forest adjacent to the field, the alternate crash site as reported by some.

Further, ACARS data shows the aircraft with the 93 designation that day was still transmitting within the system 30 some odd minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

Tying the flickering lights to a shootdown seems specious to me. The explosion he heard may have been the one recorded visually with a very neat little black cloud ascending on that basically windless day, and if it was, that cloud was not generated by a crashed 757, but something much smaller.

I have a friend from PA, with whom I drink from time to time. He says he and his volunteer fire department showed up in Shanksville by evening time, about 12 hours later. He reported seeing some sort of human remains, what he was told were human remains, in the dark, hanging from trees.

So, did the airplane penetrate the earth rendering it invisible, or what? If it penetrated the earth (impossible IMO), how could it splatter human remains in the trees? Why was there no sign from overhead that it had penetrated the earth? Why were the surrounding trees not impacted by this airliner? Why no landing gear or engines, the durable parts of a very fragile aluminum tube?

 

[Deuce]

does what this eyewitness is saying about "zapping the radar system" make any sense?

No. He's making the entire story up. Radar doesn't do that.

The military does practice runs with fighter jets over our country every day. Targeting radar isn't a massive, wide-area EMP blast. That's ... stupid to believe. Seriously. Radar-painting a target thousands of feet in the air causes power losses on the ground? What, and nobody ever noticed before that day? Or ever since?

"This guy I met said he was in the air force!" Oh well that's a wonderful source.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If it was not intercepted and downed after three other commercial airliners had been hijacked and used as terror weapons then I would be shocked. This aircraft was known to have been hijacked, was way off course and appeared to be headed back to DC about 50 minutes after the prior intentional crashes in NYC and DC.

 

[Bum]

No. He's making the entire story up. Radar doesn't do that.

The military does practice runs with fighter jets over our country every day. Targeting radar isn't a massive, wide-area EMP blast. That's ... stupid to believe. Seriously. Radar-painting a target thousands of feet in the air causes power losses on the ground? What, and nobody ever noticed before that day? Or ever since?

"This guy I met said he was in the air force!" Oh well that's a wonderful source.

Right?

Short of an EMP device detonating ( I think we would have noticed that) Radar will not do that.

Generally, the only time we see EM disruption to the power grids is during solar flares.

 

[Deuce]

Right?

Short of an EMP device detonating ( I think we would have noticed that) Radar will not do that.

Generally, the only time we see EM disruption to the power grids is during solar flares.

Technically any EM of sufficient magnitude can do it, but the idea that an F-16's on-board generator is capable of that kind of wattage is ludicrous. Now I'm picturing some rookie fighter pilot accidentally leaving his radar on during approach and disabling an entire military base.

If the military could do that, we wouldn't be bothering with missiles in the first place :lamo

 

[pinqy]

I've heard that fellow's testimony before, and it seems rather vague to me. There is no evidence 93 was shot down, because it cannot be seen anywhere in that field, or in the forest adjacent to the field, the alternate crash site as reported by some.

Further, ACARS data shows the aircraft with the 93 designation that day was still transmitting within the system 30 some odd minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

Tying the flickering lights to a shootdown seems specious to me. The explosion he heard may have been the one recorded visually with a very neat little black cloud ascending on that basically windless day, and if it was, that cloud was not generated by a crashed 757, but something much smaller.

I have a friend from PA, with whom I drink from time to time. He says he and his volunteer fire department showed up in Shanksville by evening time, about 12 hours later. He reported seeing some sort of human remains, what he was told were human remains, in the dark, hanging from trees.

So, did the airplane penetrate the earth rendering it invisible, or what? If it penetrated the earth (impossible IMO), how could it splatter human remains in the trees? Why was there no sign from overhead that it had penetrated the earth? Why were the surrounding trees not impacted by this airliner? Why no landing gear or engines, the durable parts of a very fragile aluminum tube?

Why would anyone fake the crash of Flight 93. It would not serve any purpose.

 

[Bum]

Technically any EM of sufficient magnitude can do it, but the idea that an F-16's on-board generator is capable of that kind of wattage is ludicrous. Now I'm picturing some rookie fighter pilot accidentally leaving his radar on during approach and disabling an entire military base.

If the military could do that, we wouldn't be bothering with missiles in the first place :lamo

That was the point I was making....average solar flares generate 10 to the 20th power joules of energy.....that can cause grid failure. An Aircraft carrier couldn't generate that let alone a single aircraft.

 

[Thoreau72]

Why would anyone fake the crash of Flight 93. It would not serve any purpose.

The purpose it served was to make it appear that Saudi hijackers with box cutters were successful. It is window dressing for the attacks at WTC. The number of potential reasons for involving 4 aircraft are almost endless.

Remember that on the day and after, there were rumors that other attacks had been planned, including one against a California target, but were somehow foiled.

In the end, it's just a story telling aid.

 

[camlok]

If it penetrated the earth (impossible IMO), how could it splatter human remains in the trees? Why was there no sign from overhead that it had penetrated the earth? Why were the surrounding trees not impacted by this airliner? Why no landing gear or engines, the durable parts of a very fragile aluminum tube?

Just more of the thousands of impossibilities in the USGOCT fable, Thoreau. All except the human remains. They got out just like the red bandana and the passport. Those Saudis, they make the toughest passports on the planet. Maybe they are coated with a clear Gorilla Glue.

I feel so sorry for all the major dupes/liars/deeply dishonest people who buy into/lie about the USOCT.

 

[camlok]

Why would anyone fake the crash of Flight 93. It would not serve any purpose.

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.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

Slight disagreement here. IMO, and purely anecdotal, it seems that the number of people expressing doubts about the official story is slowly increasing. When questioned, many will say "no, I'm not really sure the story is true." Years ago there would have been no doubt, but today more people are expressing doubts.

Even at some websites where 5 years ago the topic was "off limits", posters are now starting to talk about how they were fooled. They make no claims about knowing what happened exactly, but they know they've been fooled. There might be hope for the human species.

2 cents.

 

[pinqy]

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

Why? That's a needlessly complicated plan.

 

[yankintx]

Thank goodness this post is in conspiracy theories, the guy in the video needs a reality check. As do most 9/11 and JFK co spiaracy theories. Whack jobs!!

 

[camlok]

Why? That's a needlessly complicated plan.

It doesn't matter a lick why, Pinqy, it only matters that it was done. All the science describes the USOCT as being impossible. There are myriad of these impossibilities that show the US Official Conspiracy Theory is totally bogus.

"Arab hijackers" could not have caused the molten/vaporized steel that was found at WTC.

"Arab hijackers" could not have caused the molten molybdenum that was found at WTC.

"Arab hijackers" could not have caused the vaporized lead that was found at WTC.

"Arab hijackers" could not have caused the molten iron microspheres that were found at WTC, which are the by products of thermitic reactions.

"Arab hijackers" could not have planted the nanothermite that was found at WTC. Nanothermite is a proprietary new super explosive developed by the US government military laboratories.

"Arab hijackers" could not have switched planes mid air to hit WTC2 with a different plane than the one described by the USOCT. Wrong jet engine found on Murray Street; that brand was not installed on the 767-200s.

...

 

[camlok]

Thank goodness this post is in conspiracy theories, the guy in the video needs a reality check. As do most 9/11 and JFK co spiaracy theories. Whack jobs!!

You appear to be as ill informed as all the anti-truther/science denying US official conspiracy theory supporters. All you, and your cohorts have is bad spelling and personal attacks.

All USOCT supporters are really uninformed, delusional or consummate liars because there are so many absolute impossibilities about the USOCT to make it the least bit believable. See my reply to pinqy.

 

[camlok]

Slight disagreement here. IMO, and purely anecdotal, it seems that the number of people expressing doubts about the official story is slowly increasing. When questioned, many will say "no, I'm not really sure the story is true." Years ago there would have been no doubt, but today more people are expressing doubts.

Even at some websites where 5 years ago the topic was "off limits", posters are now starting to talk about how they were fooled. They make no claims about knowing what happened exactly, but they know they've been fooled. There might be hope for the human species.

2 cents.

Point taken and I agree with you, Thoreau. Let me rephrase it.

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

 

[Northern Light]

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.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

I must have missed it. What radar thing are you referring to?

 

[Thoreau72]

Why? That's a needlessly complicated plan.

The crashes at WTC were genuine, which is to say that real aircraft were involved. Not AA11 and UA175, but some sort of drone aircraft, with at least the south tower being an actual Boeing, somehow modified. The North tower may have been a Boeing, but I would bet not, for several reasons.

My own personal theory is that some sort of aircraft struck the Pentagon, but it certainly was not AA77. Shanksville, no Boeing, but I guess something might have crashed there to, but not recognizable as an aircraft by Miller or by photos.

 

[yankintx]

You appear to be as ill informed as all the anti-truther/science denying US official conspiracy theory supporters. All you, and your cohorts have is bad spelling and personal attacks.

All USOCT supporters are really uninformed, delusional or consummate liars because there are so many absolute impossibilities about the USOCT to make it the least bit believable. See my reply to pinqy.

This is why I stay away from the nutball forums

Have a great day

 

[camlok]

This is why I stay away from the nutball forums

Have a great day

Your inability to discuss the science illustrates just who the nutballs are, yankintx; they are those who support the USOCT.

Please tell me, no really, I would love to know. What kind of person would accept a story about four jumbo jets crashing but not a SINGLE PART from any of them has been presented as evidence by the US government?

Don't you think a person who accepts such a fantasy/story/crazy concoction could be called certifiably delusional?

 

[Thoreau72]

Having to contemplate or discuss the events of the day, and the subsequent cover-up, gives some people a headache. Physical symptoms of cognitive dissonance?

 

[Quag]

I've heard that fellow's testimony before, and it seems rather vague to me. There is no evidence 93 was shot down, because it cannot be seen anywhere in that field, or in the forest adjacent to the field, the alternate crash site as reported by some.

Further, ACARS data shows the aircraft with the 93 designation that day was still transmitting within the system 30 some odd minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

Tying the flickering lights to a shootdown seems specious to me. The explosion he heard may have been the one recorded visually with a very neat little black cloud ascending on that basically windless day, and if it was, that cloud was not generated by a crashed 757, but something much smaller.

I have a friend from PA, with whom I drink from time to time. He says he and his volunteer fire department showed up in Shanksville by evening time, about 12 hours later. He reported seeing some sort of human remains, what he was told were human remains, in the dark, hanging from trees.

So, did the airplane penetrate the earth rendering it invisible, or what? If it penetrated the earth (impossible IMO), how could it splatter human remains in the trees? Why was there no sign from overhead that it had penetrated the earth? Why were the surrounding trees not impacted by this airliner? Why no landing gear or engines, the durable parts of a very fragile aluminum tube?

More BS from our resident "flight instructor"