I can't see why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy.

[OldTigerCub]

i do not support statement #3.

parts of flight "93" came down somewhere else but the majority of it came down in shanksville.

Do tell! Where did these parts come down? Stoystown? Jennersville? Ligonier? The resort at Seven Springs? Stahlstown, or maybe even somewhere in the dense forests of Lynn Run, Laurel Hill, Kooser, Laurel Mountain or Laurel Ridge state parks? Has there been a part found in any of the places along the flight path?

There was some debris documented downwind of the crash in New Baltimore, but nothing more substantial than small scraps of paper and fabric were found there, and all of the rest of the debris found in the Indian lake area was found downrange of the crater, in the direction the jet was heading. So far, no parts of Flight 93 have been found, outside of the crash site and downrange/downwind.

The FDR indicates that the plane was intact, all systems normal, aside from the erratic movements of the controls, which put the plane into the dive which ultimately resulted in a CFT.
The transcript of the CVR supports the conversations between passengers and family members that they were going to try to take back the plane.
The closest fighter pilot was Billy Hutchinson, who had just finished refuelling over the D.C. area when UAL93 hit the ground, and he had only about 105 rounds of training rounds in his guns, and no missiles. By the time he could be vectored in the right direction, and get a radar blip from Flight 93, the plane was already heading down and disappeared from his scope long before he was within range..

So, why do you still maintain that Flight 93 must have been shot down?

 

[Bananaman]

Oh God, TC, not another one. Aaargh. (OK, Bananaman, turn off the tired old debunker act, because you've never debunked anything, understand?. Roger.)

Where was I? Oh yes. TC thinks flight 93 was shot down after it became apparent to the people in contact with the aeroplane (little aside there for a couple of pals of mine who actually fly, and hate the word 'plane', anyway...) that the passengers had issues.

Where does one start?

"Er, sir, flight 93 isn't going according to plan"
"What?"
"Sir, we have reports that flight 93 may have a passenger revolt."
"Blow it out of the sky."

Now, do any troofers who are semi-sane see any problems with the above scenario?

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them either work it out for themselves or, as a rather amusing alternative, watch them bury themselves in their own, ahem, poo.

Bananaman.

 

[TC329]

Tell us about the survivors of the Titantic who thought the ship went straight down. They were watching from nearby lifeboats, you know. Were they "lying"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

You can run, but you can't hide.

perhaps if flight 93 had some survivors we could ask them ron.

what the **** is wrong with you?

 

[X]

So, umm...

Why exactly did the passengers on 93 pose problems to the government?

Was it because they were wresting control away from the government operatives who had taken over the plane and let everyone know of the taekover (if it's the government, why not just replace the pilots quietly before takeoff and let the passengers be none the wiser?) and therefore the government decided to shoot down their own plane killing the innocent civilians and their own agents?

Was it because the passengers caught wind of the remote control systems installed in the plane (which somehow escaped the pilot's notice and which would have been impossible to design, install and use effectively) and wer egoing to disconnect it and fly in to safety, so the government shot down a commerrcial airliner killing innocent civilians?

Was it because there were no hijackers, and the passengers would have proved it, so they shot the airliner down?

Was it because somehow, mysteriously, the survival of FLight 93 threatened to exposed the supposed controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and the supposed faking of the Pentagon, through some as-yet unsuggested means, so the governemnt shot the aircraft down?

Ohh! I know! Flight 93 was carrying the crew that installed the explosives/thermite/thermate/squibs/keebler elves/lasers/whatever to fake the attacks! And it was shopt down to cover the crime!


Seriously, TC, I am very confused as to just what threat Flight 93 posed to the government's "plan". Can you please clarify the reasoning behind this?

If you admit there were innocent passengers but no Al-Quaida hijackers, why were they rebelling? Who told them the plan? Could've just swapped in suicidal pilots at the airport ahead of time, and the passengers never would have known.

Why shoot down the plane, if your government agants had guns? A couple shots into people they'd be killing anyways (I feel [censored word for "utterly horrible"] writing such a thing) would've quelled any uprising.

And if you think it was shot down, where is the evidence of a missile, or guns, or any other means to do it with?


We have evidence that Flight 93 crashed (nosedived, basically) in Shanksville.
We have evidence that Flight 93, and the others, were hijacked by Al-Quaida terrorists.
We have evidence that the crash was the result of the passengers bravely trying to wrest control from the hijackers, upon deducing their evil motives.

Where is your evidence of a shoot down?
Burden of proof, TC. The Al-Quaida hijack/passenger revolt has been backed up by an overwhelming amount of evidence, from all sorts of areas.
Your fancy little hypothesis (not even a theory) has, to date, ZERO evidence. Only twisted meanings, mined quotes, and a helluva lot of incredulity.

And no, saying "the crash site looks wrong" does not count. It's a logical fallacy (argument from incredulity), and it's been shown that when a plane nosedives into soft ground at high speed, the result is exactly like what was seen at Shanksville.

 

[TC329]

There was some debris documented downwind of the crash in New Baltimore, but nothing more substantial than small scraps of paper and fabric were found there, and all of the rest of the debris found in the Indian lake area was found downrange of the crater, in the direction the jet was heading. So far, no parts of Flight 93 have been found, outside of the crash site and downrange/downwind.

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

indian lake marina owner jim brandt and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli all hear the engines of a low flying plane prior to the crash.

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

indian lake groundskeeper chris smith hears a 'screaming' thing fly overhead towards the crash site prior to the explosion.

val mcclatchey hears a low flying plane pass over her house towards the crash site prior to the explosion. it in fact enables her to turn her head and see out the window the plane plummeting to the ground. her house is between the crash site and indian lake.

jim stop is fishing in indian lake and sees a plane fly by "breaking apart in the sky" prior to the explosion.

 

[TC329]

And no, saying "the crash site looks wrong" does not count.

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.

 

[X]

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.

Strawman?

All I'm doing is asking WHY the government felt threatened enough by the civilian passengers on Flight 93 that they had to shoot down the plane to prevent the exposure of their vast, complicate dconspiracy.

I merely suggested some possible scenarios. It's not my fault if your idea, fo0llowed through to it's logical end, appears infantile and silly.


So please, explain what these passengers knew that made it necessary for the government to shoot down the plane, thus allowing the brave scholars at PfT and CIT to expose their evil plot.


It's your hypothesis. Now you get to try and defend it.
Or you can run. Sometimes it's smart to run, especially from a fight you can't win...

So where is your evidence?



Regarding the quote:
It's not a quote of you. It's an attempt to forestall any claims (based on incredulity, and shown to be false) that the crash scene is suggestive of anything more than a nosedive into the ground.

 

[jhunter1163]

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.

You're not interested in showing motive because you can't.

 

[Tweeter]

If you cant bother with the 93 conspiracy, how about the
Flight 93 Memorial Conspiracy. I live 40 miles from Shanksville so we get their local news. It seems families of the crash? victims are up in arms over this. The memorial will be shaped like a Crescent Moon.
http://www.zombietime.com/flight_93_memorial_project/
Our local paper seems to be downplaying it and suggesting the families dont like the location.

 

[beachnut]

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

indian lake marina owner jim brandt and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli all hear the engines of a low flying plane prior to the crash.

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

indian lake groundskeeper chris smith hears a 'screaming' thing fly overhead towards the crash site prior to the explosion.

val mcclatchey hears a low flying plane pass over her house towards the crash site prior to the explosion. it in fact enables her to turn her head and see out the window the plane plummeting to the ground. her house is between the crash site and indian lake.

jim stop is fishing in indian lake and sees a plane fly by "breaking apart in the sky" prior to the explosion.

Darn, they heard the plane. It is called sound it travels and reflects off the hills around the lake. The lake being the lowest area around if you would check your facts. Sound, oops, they didn't see it, because it was crashing and already crashed!

You already made this error before and failed!

Your ideas are so biased to false junk. How do you invent this much stupid stuff?

And the witnesses even saw the plane upside down as the FDR reports. And this heading proves Jim Stop did not see the plane over the lake. It takes some knowledge of heading and flying, but you may be able to figure this out. But so far you have just posted hearsay as your support. What is your idea on the shoot down fantasy spread by some?

Here is Jim Stop's story as told by a news source.

As you can see the only quote attributed to Jim is "I heard the engine whine and scream,". This means the news source just said he looked up and saw flight 93 overhead based on the notes they took. This is pure hearsay and you have interpreted overhead to mean straight up, and there is not one shred of evidence to back up your idea. Most first and second graders understand cause and effect; do you.

Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.

“I heard the engine whine and scream,” Stop said.

He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html)

Why are you spreading lies?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.

Good point. I still remember back when there was no Loose-Change-style "9/11 Truth" inside job line. It was all just questions, and this was just one of them. I always thought it was just evident it was shot down, but I've seen so much BS I'm not so sure now. It's not my field and I'm real rusty outside that.

I always figured it'd be revealed someday, and that people would just say "oh! Well... I guess they should have, something went right." The "Let's Roll" story would be revealed as morale-boosting sugar-coating. It's actually pretty cynical, so I didn't expect the change overnight, probably decades off.

Personally I can see several reasons they might want to not admit to it.

But as we see, the shoot-down was just not "Truthy" enough, so we had the no plane there at all canard emerge. This is just so stupid. There's no plane parts, so there's no plane! We know there was no plane, so when we finally see plane parts, they must be planted. Of course! They faked the scene! They didn't fake it well enough tho that it really looked like a plane crashed there, which is how we know it had to be faked. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. ...

 

[Caustic Logic]

perhaps if flight 93 had some survivors we could ask them ron.

what the **** is wrong with you?

Did all the Flight 93 witnesses you interviewed die? No? Then his analogy is just as applicable here as it is at the Pentagon, to the extent that you rely on peoples' often confused recollections. I don't know how applicable it is really, as I haven't seen your work on this yet. Is it available? I will say your take on 93 is not normal CIT-stupid, at least on its face.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If you cant bother with the 93 conspiracy, how about the
Flight 93 Memorial Conspiracy. I live 40 miles from Shanksville so we get their local news. It seems families of the crash? victims are up in arms over this. The memorial will be shaped like a Crescent Moon.
http://www.zombietime.com/flight_93_memorial_project/
Our local paper seems to be downplaying it and suggesting the families dont like the location.

I always heard they were upset about the shape too. It is an odd choice. The CTist in me wonders if the company wanted to suck up money for one design they knew wouldn't fly, then get a second dose to re-design?

 

[Hokulele]

So please, explain what these passengers knew that made it necessary for the government to shoot down the plane, thus allowing the brave scholars at PfT and CIT to expose their evil plot.

Seriously. I mean, even if the passengers were about to blow the government's cover, why shoot it down? Why couldn't the government operatives just, er, drive it into the ground?


(Wow, I feel filthy even thinking about such things. Ech, time for a bath.)

 

[X]

(Wow, I feel filthy even thinking about such things. Ech, time for a bath.)

You too, eh?
It does disturb one, to think such thoughts.

Perhaps its the sheer inhumanity of it.


I really hope TC329 has a good answer to my (perfectly valid, IMHO) question.

 

[BenBurch]

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

Liar.

 

[beachnut]

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

...
mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

You never get anything right! Are you trying to mess up everything? How can you be this bad.

The debris is south of the impact crater, not west! The debris at Indian Lake floated on the air to the lake. Did you miss that? The wind was blowing it to Indian Lake, did you check the wind!?

Please prove there is not a trail of debris to Indian Lake. Do you just make up stuff and see if it floats?

No you are a liar. Mayor Barry Lickty never said 93 flew over his house, he said this.

My wife and I were watching CNN about what was happening in New York and Washington. We heard a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile. We both ducked. Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor.

Mayor Barry Lickty never said 93 flew over his house, and he had more to say.

There were rumors that Flight 93 was shot down. I was at the crash site within fifteen minutes. If it had been shot down, there would have been debris spread over a much wider area. The debris was confirmed to where it crashed, forward of that in the trees, and down wind here at Indian Lake.

Guess what they found between the impact crater and the lake. Sorry, why are you making up stuff?

, like charred seatbelts, ledger sheets, papers, and lighter things like that.

So far you have messed up everything.

 

[Tweeter]

I always heard they were upset about the shape too. It is an odd choice. The CTist in me wonders if the company wanted to suck up money for one design they knew wouldn't fly, then get a second dose to re-design?

I watched the news tonight and couldnt believe it.
The families are seriously pissed. One father was evening asking who the real terrorists were. He looked to be joining the woo very soon.
http://www.wjactv.com/news/17076321/detail.html

 

[Caustic Logic]

Beachy - thanks for the researched facts. I probably won't look into this myself, but does TC care to prove you wrong with graphics that illustrate the directions of of the crater and debris? How does this direction line up with the FDR?

 

[beachnut]

Beachy - thanks for the researched facts. I probably won't look into this myself, but does TC care to prove you wrong with graphics that illustrate the directions of of the crater and debris? How does this direction line up with the FDR?

The wind lines up to drop junk on the Lake.
The heading was south and junk is all over the ground south of the impact.

I have to look it all up again. TC is the worse research analyst I have seen. Or at least equal to CIT and p4t. One massive black hole for facts, and out pops pure junk, that is TC.

In any aircraft accident some things are ejected all over. But as I learn more their stupid ideas get more lame. They never think about what things mean.

But I already know the debris was scatted to the south, and light stuff was blown on the wind.

South, you can see other photos with junk all along those houses./

Mag heading 187, about -3 drift, 184 impact.
The plane was rolling back from 153 to 142 at 9 degrees a second.