Does Anyone Else Believe Flight 93 Got Shot Down?

[gulfcoastliberal]

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight93.html

And the admin lied about it? It seems that based on such things as human bodies and aircraft debris being found miles away from the crash site, eyewitnesses seeing F-16s in the area immediately before and after the crash, Edward Felt's call describing explosions and smoke coming off the aircraft, and finally the sound of wind whipping through the cabin on the cockpit CVR? There are many more convincing eyewitness accounts and other anomolies discussed at cooperative research. It seems like such a haunting probability. Why are they lying about this?

[lcordero]

1. I thought that the day of

they did admit to shooting a plane down.

[pacifictiger]

10. if they did say that

they certainly didnt repeat it!!!!
More lies and deceit to cover their asses. Unbeleivably sickening. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the decision to shoot at the plane if they didn't know the passengers were taking action, given the circumstances of that sad day, but, as they say about martha and bill - its the lying and the cover up that is the prosecutable crime.

[seventhson]

2. emp weapon

targeted beam knocked out its power so it would crash.

Top secret.

[MercutioATC]

3. Nope. After talking to the air traffic controller who was sitting at the

scope when Flight 93 went down, I don't believe it was shot down.

[JailForBush]

6. And you know tis ATC was telling the truth? He hadn't been

coached or threatened by the autorities?

[MercutioATC]

12. She...and because I've known Stacey (and worked with her) for years.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. ROTFLMAO!

And MercutioATC goes for the three-pointer...NOTHING BUT NET!

[MercutioATC]

22. Well, it's true...

:shrug:

I've actually had a few conversations with her on the subject. She's a good controller and I trust her judgement. Could an F-117 with its transponder turned off have shot it down? Probably. An F-16, however, has a detectable radar signature. I think she'd have seen it.

[Abe Linkman]

4. Worms

Why are they lying about this? For the same reason they are lying about
all of the "Wacky Cave Man" Conspiracy Theory of 911. The murkanpeebles
couldn't handle it, you know. Not enough Valium readily available. Unlke duct-tape, you can't just go to your local Homeless Depot and pick
up a supply of tranks. Maybe at Bailliol Brothers Pharmacy ("Prescriptions Without A Prescription" - Just see our boy Rush at the back, and tell him necessity sent you.), but otherwise, you gotta pay a doc & get a script.

[RH]

5. zzzzZZ

:boring:

:thumbsdown:

[Blitz]

27. Amen

n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. But Then Why

Did the local sheriff confirm it got shot down? And what's with all the debris and human remains from inside the airplane found miles away from the crash site? Also, other national guard pilots were first told that the plane had been downed but the story later retracted? I can't shake the feeling that the evidence points to crash by sidewinder. And at least one ATC said F-16s were on its tail:

Shortly after 9/11, a flight controller in New Hampshire ignores a ban on controllers speaking to the media, and it is reported he claims "that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said. 'He must've seen the whole thing,' the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash."

(Reprinted from cooperativeresearch.org)

[MercutioATC]

13. Since Flight 93 crashed in Cleveland Center's airspace, and

Cleveland Center is in Oberlin, OH, I have no idea how a controller in New Hampshire thinks he got a better look than out controllers did (none of which saw an F-16 anywhere near Flight 93 from the time it deviated from its flight plan 'till it crashed).

[RH]

14. Would a controller

only know that an F16 was present because of a blip on a screen?

What sort of communication is supposed to take place between ATC and the military?

Do air force craft transpond the same as the civilian variety?

Are they ordinarily required to have their flight plans approved?

For safety's sake one would hope so.

[MercutioATC]

15. O.K., in order...

1) Yes. That day (and most days) the military had transponders on. The military aircraft in the area had active transponders. Even if the transponder had been turned off, we'd still see the primary target.

2) Unless they're in restricted military airspace or above 60,000 feet, they talk to us.

3) Transponders are the same, at least as far as our purposes are concerned.

4) They do ordinarily file flight plans, but for something like an interception there'd obviously be no filed plan.

[RH]

16. Thanks, that's very clear.

But to be yet clearer, in the present context would there be any legitimate reason at all for ATC not to have been made aware of e.g. the fighter jets that were sent to intercept, albeit belatedly?

[MercutioATC]

17. Not really...

We're privy to pretty much all military flights. The ones that don't talk to us are in military blocks or routes for training purposes and are talking to their own controllers.

I suppose it's possible that the military could have chosen to leave us out of the loop but that would have been extremely unusual and wouldn't have precluded our seeing primary targets (which would have stood out if they were moving as fast as an F-16 moves).

[RH]

24. Thanks again. The only other thing

I wonder about is how low an aircraft would have to fly to be off ATC radar.

[MercutioATC]

25. Depends on the area. Near Shanksville, we can see almost to the ground.

Radar is a line-of-sight tool. As long as there isn't significant terrain between the radar site and the aircraft, we get pretty good contact.

South of Shanksville by 10 or 15 miles, however, we start to lose good low-altitude coverage...Call it 4500' MSL (about 3500' AGL).

[Homer12]

8. What would make better Propaganda?

1) U.S airforce shooting down the Jet?

2) The Passengers taking action themselves?

[pacifictiger]

11. bingo

[Bolo Boffin]

20. What would make better reasoning?

1) Looking at the evidence

2) Begging the question

[Bolo Boffin]

21. What would make better propaganda?

1) The Passengers taking action themselves?

2) Bush on camera, holding back the tears, fire in his eyes, as he explains why and how he ordered US military jets to shoot down innocent American citizens.

Please. The American people would have let Bush restorm Normandy after the second option.

[demodewd]

23. How bout...

How bout...by the government supporting the alleged story that the plane was brought down due to the struggle between the passengers and the hijackers effectually eliminating the whole difficult process of explaining their actions to an American public? An American public who would wonder why they(Bush?) would elect to shoot it down at that particular moment when there was the news that the passengers were fighting for control.

[pocoloco]

9. I'm still waiting for Kerry to give us the scoop

on Flight 800, thought it might come out during the campaign.

http://www.62596.com/news_files/kerry.htm

[Robb]

18. The last poll here back in November

...had 70% thinking it was shot down. Of course, truth is not democratic, but there it is.

I think if it was brought down, the reason for not telling us is probably far more interesting than the propaganda quality of the "heroes" story.

I should say, I completely believe there was a struggle, and will go so far as to say, based on what I've learned, I'm convinced one of the pax wound up in the left seat before things went awry.

I am similarly convinced that sadly the plane was brought down shortly thereafter, making (as I see it) a very sad story even more tragic.

[BrokenSegue]

26. Quick put on a tinfoil hat

[bubba_fett]

28. And if it was?

Is there really any controversy there? So the plane was shot down, what would you suggest?

Most people who criticize the administration's handling of 911 complain that it took too long for military aircraft to be deployed...well what would they expect those aircraft to do, had they been given the order earlier?

I think there are many other parts of the 911 scenario that beg our attention besides whether or not 93 was shot down. And although I can't say that that decision would have been a just one (what decision would you have made?) it's not surprising.

I think it's plausible that it was shot down and the Bremer story cooked up to soften the blow of the news that our military took out a civilian airplane which was a threat to the WH, IMHO.

Yes, I know that the real issue is that we are being lied to about this, but if this is the case this might just be one the "whiter" lies of 911, and I think there are far more sinister things that happened which we should be looking at instead.

[Abe Linkman]

29. What do you have in mind?

"I think there are far more sinister things that happened which we should be looking at instead."

[bubba_fett]

30. Oh, I don't know...

Something definitely doesn't smell right about 911, but I'm trying to be realistic. Yes, it's possible that the Bremer story was cooked up, much like Jessica Lynch.

I don't really have a solid opinion of what happened on 911, because I haven't seen enough evidence to help me make up my mind. But I am trying to be a realist here, and my opinion wavers more towards the real story. If F93 was shot down, and the Bremer story was cooked up, I'm sure it was simply because it had to be done. If the plane has to go down I'm sure the military would rather see it go down in a field in Penn, rather than in the middle of DC to minimize civilian casualties, especially after NY had just been hit.

The real issue is what else were we lied to about, and why? Did Bush know? Was the situation handled properly? Are the actions being taken post 911 (patriot act, protecting the 'Homeland' :puke:) really for our own good? Or is the administration trying to cash in on this tragedy.

[Abe Linkman]

31. You'll probably really like what the OIfficial "Investigation" turns up.

I think they're gonna spaak to all of those important issues you raised.

[demodewd]

33. Flight 77

There certainly was time to shoot down the Pentagon plane but apparently Bush thought it better to just let that one crash. :eyes:

[demodewd]

32. phone calls

With all the alleged calls made from the plane why would the administration chose to shoot the plane down at that moment? Why wouldn't they allow the passengers to play out their purported intentions? There was still some time. If the a plane was shot down there looks to me to be an argument for premeditation.

[bubba_fett]

34. I don't think they were thinking about it

I really don't think the administration or the military were monitoring cell phone usage at the time.