Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

[Deuce]

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.

Show me pictures of the engine.

 

[Deuce]

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.

The so-called flight instructor thinks a five-mile-radius level turn is an "impossible maneuver."

 

[Quag]

The so-called flight instructor thinks a five-mile-radius level turn is an "impossible maneuver."

He also thinks spotting the largest building in the world from the air is nigh impossible

 

[Thoreau72]

Someone should give credence to PFT and AE911 because they are in the business, and because the official story is trying to put the square peg into the circle--it doesn't fit. Assuming one is able to examine the evidence available, and one has a curious and open mind, one quickly discovers how wrong the OCT story is. Impossible phone calls, impossible maneuvers, forged FDR, no airliners in certain places all make the OCT impossible.

That's why Mike. Analytical thought 101

 

[Quag]

Someone should give credence to PFT and AE911 because they are in the business, and because the official story is trying to put the square peg into the circle--it doesn't fit. Assuming one is able to examine the evidence available, and one has a curious and open mind, one quickly discovers how wrong the OCT story is. Impossible phone calls, impossible maneuvers, forged FDR, no airliners in certain places all make the OCT impossible.

That's why Mike. Analytical thought 101

They are in the business of making money by lying about 911

 

[MaggieD]

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

I vote no because we have no proof. But if we did? I can’t say that I blame our gvmt for making that extremely difficult choice.

“The good of the many outweighs the good of a few.”

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes Maggie, in that hypothetical, and given the events of the day earlier at WTC, I would not blame the pilot for taking out 93 if he had the chance.

But there is no evidence that it happened that way. Nobody was able to find a crashed airliner, much less 93, and eventually it was shown by way of ACARS data that 93 was still airborne somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in PA.

 

[mike2810]

Someone should give credence to PFT and AE911 because they are in the business, and because the official story is trying to put the square peg into the circle--it doesn't fit. Assuming one is able to examine the evidence available, and one has a curious and open mind, one quickly discovers how wrong the OCT story is. Impossible phone calls, impossible maneuvers, forged FDR, no airliners in certain places all make the OCT impossible.

That's why Mike. Analytical thought 101

What business is PFT and AE911 is in?

Sorry T72. I have seen where Capt. Bob lied, distorted facts, and would not admit to his errors. For example, in one of the threads here I called him on one of his vids showing a crash of a airtanker on a fire. The wing folded. His vid was on exceeding vmo. He was using that accident as an example. I supplied the accident report and its findings. The wing failure was not due to the type of flying. It was an undetected crack in a wing support.

He was unwilling to say he was wrong to include that footage in the vid.

Lost all creditability with me. Sorry, Capt. Bob is not much better than CIT.

 

[camlok]

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

For the one totally obvious reason that you are either missing of purposefully causing distraction on.
These people have zero conflict of interest, these people are independent citizens, real patriots, not the fake BS ,
science denying folks who defend a totally implausible fable, people exactly like you and the anti-truther gang, mike.


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.

You are deceiving everyone again, mike, because the "research" you folks do is something that you have to keep secret, it's done by fraud artists like Michael Shermer, ... . You guys won't show your "research" nor will you put forward the names of the "researchers" you know are frauds.

 

[camlok]

Show me pictures of the engine.

Such are the "research" skills of the science denying anti-truther, Deuce. Look at all your fellow travelers posts, Deuce, they are filled with diversions and distractions. They aren't intended to discuss the issues/science in any meaningful way.

You guys have always been nothing but diversions and distraction, zero evidence, fraud artists who seek information from other known fraud artists. You guys and the debunker fraud artists always use the same crap you used in this post.

 

[camlok]

The so-called flight instructor thinks a five-mile-radius level turn is an "impossible maneuver."

See what I mean about your totally dishonest approach, Deuce. All you guys have to do is find someone, a flight instructor, a pilot, a pilot trainer, someone beside your usual fraud artists that you almost never bring forward but all you do is attack with ZERO EVIDENCE, with your totally inane one sentence distraction.

The really crazy thing is that people that lie, divert, distract, obfuscate in this patented USOCT supporter manner have no sense of shame at all.

 

[camlok]

What business is PFT and AE911 is in?

The business of truth, which is polar opposites to you and your fraud artists and their "evidence", both of which you science deniers won't even bring forward.

Sorry T72. I have seen where Capt. Bob lied, distorted facts, and would not admit to his errors.

That is you and yours in a nutshell, mike.

He was unwilling to say he was wrong to include that footage in the vid.

You guys all deny stark reality. You engage in this slander of a person who isn't even here to defend himself. That is truly despicable behavior but par for the course for you folks, mike!

Lost all creditability with me. Sorry, Capt. Bob is not much better than CIT.

More slander from mike. I'm sure Bob and the folks of CIT are really worried about losing credibility with a fella who right in this very post illustrates just how patently dishonest/unfair he is.

 

[camlok]

They are in the business of making money by lying about 911

No one with a functioning brain would ever believe this arrant nonsense or advance such nonsense. All you guys are are crap throwers, flinging poo around with your patented zero evidence.

 

[camlok]

I vote no because we have no proof. But if we did? I can’t say that I blame our gvmt for making that extremely difficult choice.

Absolutely no disrespect intended, Maggie but how on Earth can you say there is no proof. You have run from the proof after, seemingly, illustrating that you were interested in the truth.

“The good of the many outweighs the good of a few.”

Again, zero disrespect intended but you are advancing an idea that is no different than that of the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, ... . Do you believe the murder of roughly 2900 of your fellow citizens is okay for your lying governments - you seem to be an engaged citizen so I wonder do you actually know of the number of their lies. I would hope you do.

Do you consider it honest to discuss something, then flee when you bump into some mentally challenging issues? Do you consider it honest to still silent while posters just attack attack attack, never offering any evidence/rational discussion for the issue they pretend they want to discuss?

 

[mike2810]

More slander from mike. I'm sure Bob and the folks of CIT are really worried about losing credibility with a fella who right in this very post illustrates just how patently dishonest/unfair he is.

Thank you.
Once again you demonstrate your inability to discuss the topic without posting insults.

Are you not a "no planer" supporter? So what happened to flight 93?

 

[camlok]

Thank you.

You're welcome, mike. Even you can come to appreciate honesty. Maybe you have.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to discuss the topic without posting insults.

You are such a stunning hypocrite, mike. Your whole post was about insults. You slandered people who weren't there to defend themselves and you, AS ALWAYS, never provided any evidence to back up your slanderous statements. This is the essence of the USGOCT supporters, slander without proof, make little nasty remarks and run. Just go back and look at yours, Quag's, zyzygy's, beefheart's, all of whose posts you have LIKED, mike.

Are you not a "no planer" supporter? So what happened to flight 93?

I am someone who willingly looks at all evidence put forward in an honest manner by people who are seeking the truth. All you do, all you guys ever do is malign these folks when they are doing exactly what citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, - question their governments!!!

Do you hold that it is wrong to questions your governments and what they do? Do you acknowledge that they repeatedly lied about a large number of very important issues?

You tell me what happened to 93.
.
Lionel Nation says he encourages anyone to ask whatever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they want for as long as they want.

Don't you think that that is a good thing? Isn't it, in your mind, an American thing? Do you agree with Mr Nation?

 

[nota bene]

I am someone who willingly looks at all evidence put forward in an honest manner by people who are seeking the truth. All you do, all you guys ever do is malign these folks when they are doing exactly what citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, - question their governments!!!

Do you hold that it is wrong to questions your governments and what they do? Do you acknowledge that they repeatedly lied about a large number of very important issues?

You tell me what happened to 93.

You asked, "Do you consider it honest to discuss something, then flee when you bump into some mentally challenging issues?" So what is your theory on what happened to Flight 93? I don't want you to flee; I'm eager to learn your theory.

 

[MaggieD]

Again, zero disrespect intended but you are advancing an idea that is no different than that of the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, ... . Do you believe the murder of roughly 2900 of your fellow citizens is okay for your lying governments - you seem to be an engaged citizen so I wonder do you actually know of the number of their lies. I would hope you do.

Do you consider it honest to discuss something, then flee when you bump into some mentally challenging issues? Do you consider it honest to still silent while posters just attack attack attack, never offering any evidence/rational discussion for the issue they pretend they want to discuss?

In order to intelligently discuss something, one must be informed. I know nothing about structural engineering and nothing about magnesium melt point. I just made that UP that’s how little I know. Or Thermote. Or the melting point of steel when subjected to x hours of jet fueled fire.

But let me advance something to you, if I may. I was at a wedding reception overlooking the Chicago River last night. Heart of downtown. A shirt-tail friend sat next to me. A very successful structural engineer with her own firm in the city.

So always looking for chatter about, I asked her if her profession is the profession that is best qualified to discuss the fall of the towers. She said, “Well, one of them.” She could tell I was intrigued, so she led me to the railing of the outside reception and pointed to three buildings. “Buildings are specifically structurally designed to fall in certain ways when they’ve been severely compromised. We would never design a building to topple sideways, as an example.”

”See that building over there?” She pointed to a skyscraper. “That one is designed to twist and then fall straight down on itself. That one THERE is designed to simply pancake.” Then, she had trouble getting me to recognize the third building she pointed to, but when she did, she said, “That building has been found to have been designed poorly so that, if it lost structural integrity, odds are very great that it would fall forward. It is being modified as we speak.”

As for my comments that others say it wouldn’t just pancake down...that it looked like a controlled demolition? She said something like, “That building collapsed exactly how it was designed. And that is the ONLY way controlled demolition is designed to function.”

Long story short, she believes the commission’s report on the collapse. That right there, her very educated opinion with no dog in the fight, is enough for me...and especially when I add it to my own common sense belief that a conspiracy so sophisticated and vast would take way too many people for it to ever remain secret.

And since I am not an expert, I have nothing to contribute to continuing discussion about any of it.

 

[MaggieD]

Again, zero disrespect intended but you are advancing an idea that is no different than that of the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, ... . Do you believe the murder of roughly 2900 of your fellow citizens is okay for your lying governments - you seem to be an engaged citizen so I wonder do you actually know of the number of their lies. I would hope you do.

Do you consider it honest to discuss something, then flee when you bump into some mentally challenging issues? Do you consider it honest to still silent while posters just attack attack attack, never offering any evidence/rational discussion for the issue they pretend they want to discuss?

I actually forgot this thread was on Flight 93. I don’t discuss that because, as I think I said in this thread, if the gvmt shot it down, I wouldn’t be surprised. But doubt we’d ever know that for sure. As to the crash site, if they really felt it necessary, they could sacrifice a perfectly good airplane, and with black box data, duplicate the crash to see what remained. I do know that they found remains of 40 crew and passengers through DNA and four unidentified that they assume to be the hijackers’. That’s enough for me.

Since either way it happened would be understandable, I have no interest in debating it.

 

[camlok]

You asked, "Do you consider it honest to discuss something, then flee when you bump into some mentally challenging issues?" So what is your theory on what happened to Flight 93? I don't want you to flee; I'm eager to learn your theory.

You don't want me to flee, nota bene, but you don't hold yourself to the same standard. Please address this honestly, don't flee.

I, like most everyone else, don't know a lot about Flight 93, because it hasn't been top drawer stuff. I agree with Lionel Nation - Where's the plane??!!

How, NB, does a cotton bandana and a passport, conveniently an alleged hijacker's passport escape being obliterated when everything else, including virtually indestructible titanium parts can't be found and brought forward as evidence?

How, NB, is it possible that the Pentagon's wide array of cameras failed to capture any picture of the plane? There just are so many things that don't pass the smell test.

In fact, where is the proof for any of the alleged 911 planes actually being the ones that crashed where the lying US governments said they did. My mention of the lying US governments isn't a gratuitous slur, it is well known by everyone save for those who are not operating with a full deck.

 

[nota bene]

You don't want me to flee, nota bene, but you don't hold yourself to the same standard. Please address this honestly, don't flee.

I, like most everyone else, don't know a lot about Flight 93, because it hasn't been top drawer stuff. I agree with Lionel Nation - Where's the plane??!!

How, NB, does a cotton bandana and a passport, conveniently an alleged hijacker's passport escape being obliterated when everything else, including virtually indestructible titanium parts can't be found and brought forward as evidence?

How, NB, is it possible that the Pentagon's wide array of cameras failed to capture any picture of the plane? There just are so many things that don't pass the smell test.

In fact, where is the proof for any of the alleged 911 planes actually being the ones that crashed where the lying US governments said they did. My mention of the lying US governments isn't a gratuitous slur, it is well known by everyone save for those who are not operating with a full deck.

I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.

But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?

 

[zyzygy]

I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.

But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?

He doesn't do theories. Insults are all he has.

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.

But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?

It departed from Newark under slightly unusual circumstances according to talk. All I know is that it was not on the ground in Pennsylvania. Some people research the Bureau of Transportation Statistics regarding those flights.

 

[camlok]

In order to intelligently discuss something, one must be informed. I know nothing about 1.structural engineering and nothing about 2. magnesium melt point. I just made that UP that’s how little I know. Or 3.Thermote. Or 4.the melting point of steel when subjected to x hours of jet fueled fire.

One can learn, Maggie and one can draw adult, sensible conclusions from the evidence presented. Are you going to refuse jury duty because you are "educated" enough?

1. No steel framed high rise towers have ever collapses due to fires in all their history. Three did so on 911. The odds of that happening are 500 trillion to one. Office fires burning full tilt cannot compromise steel enough to cause a collapse, even with jet fuel added.

The combination of office furnishings and jet fuel burning as it did in WTCs 1 & 2, can burn for your and your kids' lifetimes and never melt steel [2,750F] or molybdenum [4,700F] or vaporize lead [3,180F] OR create the by products of a nanothermite reaction. For the last one, ONLY the US government/US military have access to this NON-COMMERCIALLY available supper explosive invented by US military labs in the 1990s.

How did this nanothermite get into the WTC twin towers and especially into WTC7?

You should be able to draw some adult, sensible conclusions from this evidence presented, or at the least, want to ask more questions, wonder about these impossible anomalies.

But let me advance something to you, if I may. I was at a wedding reception overlooking the Chicago River last night. Heart of downtown. A shirt-tail friend sat next to me. A very successful structural engineer with her own firm in the city.

So always looking for chatter about, I asked her if her profession is the profession that is best qualified to discuss the fall of the towers. She said, “Well, one of them.” She could tell I was intrigued, so she led me to the railing of the outside reception and pointed to three buildings. “Buildings are specifically structurally designed to fall in certain ways when they’ve been severely compromised. We would never design a building to topple sideways, as an example.”

But that is exactly what should have happened with all three towers, they should have toppled,
fell in a haphazard halting manner according to the laws of physics. They all fell in a very symmetrical fashion, thru the path of greatest resistance, Maggie. The path of greatest resistance means all the numerous stories below that were stone cold steel which got progressively larger as you went down. They did so without any jolt, which also defies the laws of physics.

The French uses a method called verinage, which uses the weight of the top to help bring down the entire building. Half or more than half of a building's top floors is collapsed by hydraulics which causes the lower half to collapse. BUT, the crucial thing to remember in this is that there is ALWAYS A JOLT, which means there is ALWAYS a slowing down of the rate of descent in accordance with the laws of physics.

That did not happen to the twin towers. They accelerated throughout the collapse - a total impossibility according to the very laws of physics that the entire world acknowledges and believes in.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Again, that is an impossibility according to the same laws of physics.

”See that building over there?” She pointed to a skyscraper. “That one is designed to twist and then fall straight down on itself. That one THERE is designed to simply pancake.” Then, she had trouble getting me to recognize the third building she pointed to, but when she did, she said, “That building has been found to have been designed poorly so that, if it lost structural integrity, odds are very great that it would fall forward. It is being modified as we speak.”

You most assuredly may ask, assert, state anything you damn well please, Maggie.

Isn't that what we are supposed to be about? Why do you sit silent when others try to cow people into silence, when they shout them down, when they ridicule their offerings/evidence/beliefs/assertions/inquiries/... ?

I question your engineer's ideas. Just consider one thing. If what she said had any validity, 1. why did she feel the need to draw you aside and "inform" you in secret.

2. If what she said had any validity then there would never be any need for controlled demolition companies.

3. If what she said had any validity, by what method would the steel "twist and then fall straight down on itself"! Steel that is designed to carry the dead and live loads cannot also be designed to "twist".

[PART B TO FOLLOW]

 

[camlok]

I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.

But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?

Why are you wasting your time if you have no interest, nota bene? You do understand what your moniker means, do you not?