Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

RedIbis said:
Did they attack the cockpit, or did they attack the door to the cockpit because you have zero evidence they ever got in. According to the theory you support, hijacking terrorists who have managed to kill, fit and well trained pilots were scared of food cart wielding passengers banging on a door.

Great theory.
Click to expand...
Not a theory. The reality is the pilots were killed because they would stop the terrorists. It is the duty of the Pilot to protect the Passengers, Crew and aircraft in that order. If you do not kill the pilots like the terrorists you apologize for did, you can't fly your jet into a building.

The Passengers on 93 did in minutes what you can't do in 8 years; figure out 911. How sad you are loyally apologizing for terrorists and displaying your ignorance on the topic. The Passengers on Flight 93 also took action you can't deny. When will you take action to figure out 911?

The door is the cockpit. This is the best you can do is make fun of the pilots for having their throats-cut no-notice? You think you can stop someone from cutting your throat when it is done by surprise? How long can you function with your throat-cut?

You can't deny 93 crashed in PA with evidence so you try using stupid questions to raise doubt; but there is no doubt you have no evidence on 911. Remember the door is the cockpit, my cockpit door is part of my cockpit; Got Flying experience? Got evidence? No, you have delusions; no theory just stupid questions.

Too bad you can't put together a better theory to beat reality.

RedIbis said:
My theory is that there's been a cover up and the official story is bs.
Click to expand...
You do have a big theory; wowzer. And your evidence is the empty set.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
I know you won't Red, so maybe we can start off small, eh? How about you explain why the theory that the passengers attacked the cockpit is BS.Is this part of the cover up ? Please explain why the phone calls from the passengers to loved ones who said they were going to do this is BS, is this part of the cover up ? Explain why the blackbox transcript is BS, is this part of the cover up ?

When you are ready.
Click to expand...

I think the assumption that the passengers made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled, "Let's Roll" is bs. It makes a good story but it's not consistent with the Commission Report.

I am interested in how these assumptions are maintained and even defended in the face of conflicting evidence.

Originally, I asked what I think is a very legitimate question, why did the hijackers plow Flight 93 into the ground?

The only answer based on available research is because they heard the passengers at the cockpit door and someone yell "Roll it," not "Let's roll."

My questions are more or less tests of research, nothing personal about it.
 
But WHY do you think it never happened?

I'm sure these pilots were able to leap from their chairs and fend off the hijackers who attacked them from behind while they were strapped in their seats using the kung fu they learned in flight school.

I'm sure also that the passengers, who by then knew they would die otherwise, must have been able to put up no fight at all to the couple hijackers left outside the cockpit door. I mean, there were only 2 or three passengers and they were all women, and none of them was a Judo expert.

Red, most of the time your mental gymnastics you use to support your theory amuse me, but sometimes you make me physically ill with this kind of crap.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's interesting, by the way, that you've substituted the word "ditch" for the word "ground", thereby giving a false impression that the impact crater was a pre-existing feature.

Dave
Click to expand...

What I denote in his use of the word "ditch" is a total disrespect for the death of the victims of Flight 93.

It's not a ditch, it's a graveyard. Shame on you, Red. :mad:
 
twinstead said:
But WHY do you think it never happened?

I'm sure these pilots were able to leap from their chairs and fend off the hijackers who attacked them from behind while they were strapped in their seats using the kung fu they learned in flight school.

I'm sure also that the passengers, who by then knew they would die otherwise, must have been able to put up no fight at all to the couple hijackers left outside the cockpit door. I mean, there were only 2 or three passengers and they were all women, and none of them was a Judo expert.

Red, most of the time your mental gymnastics you use to support your theory amuse me, but sometimes you make me physically ill with this kind of crap.
Click to expand...

The sickness you're feeling is the reality that the passengers never made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled "Let's roll."

I don't expect anyone here to believe me, but I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, this is nothing more than cold reality. I'm asking for the most accurate description of what happened based on official reports.
 
BTW, you still haven't answered what happened to flights 93 and 77.

If they didn't crash in the Pentagon and Shanksville, where did they go? They were hijacked to go where?

As Chillzero said, we haven't finished with this issue. Leave Todd Beamer alone.
 
Pardalis said:
What I denote in his use of the word "ditch" is a total disrespect for the death of the victims of Flight 93.

It's not a ditch, it's a graveyard. Shame on you, Red. :mad:
Click to expand...

When in doubt, the debunker will always resort to righteous indignation and arguments of pathos.
 
RedIbis said:
I think the assumption that the passengers made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled, "Let's Roll" is bs. It makes a good story but it's not consistent with the Commission Report.

I am interested in how these assumptions are maintained and even defended in the face of conflicting evidence.

Originally, I asked what I think is a very legitimate question, why did the hijackers plow Flight 93 into the ground?

The only answer based on available research is because they heard the passengers at the cockpit door and someone yell "Roll it," not "Let's roll."

My questions are more or less tests of research, nothing personal about it.
Click to expand...

And this means what, exactly? The phone calls were faked? The passengers didn't fight back? The plane was shot down? The crash site was faked? What?

I personally have shown you the transcript that showed the final moments of these people’s lives, you ignored it. You ignore the overwhelming evidence from other members and try to construct something out of nothing.

Is this really all you have ?
 
RedIbis said:
The sickness you're feeling is the reality that the passengers never made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled "Let's roll."

I don't expect anyone here to believe me, but I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, this is nothing more than cold reality. I'm asking for the most accurate description of what happened based on official reports.
Click to expand...

Ultimately though it makes absolutely NO difference. If there was some kind of cover up or inside job, don't you think the official report would be sure to include a definite "let's roll"? I would imagine that if it wasn't in the official report it's because there wasn't sufficient evidence one way or the other.

I won't deny it could be considered a legitimate question per the OP. Did Todd actually say "let's roll" or was it some kind of misunderstanding? But, certainly it means absolutely nothing towards evidence of an inside job. It just means that the official investigation also had questions about it.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Saudi involvement, whether or not Flight 93 is in the ditch
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it.

If there were no plane crash for flights 93 and 77, how can you say they were hijacked by Saudi patsies? They were patsies to do what?

Where did those planes and passengers go?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I think the assumption that the passengers made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled, "Let's Roll" is bs. It makes a good story but it's not consistent with the Commission Report.

I am interested in how these assumptions are maintained and even defended in the face of conflicting evidence.

Originally, I asked what I think is a very legitimate question, why did the hijackers plow Flight 93 into the ground?

The only answer based on available research is because they heard the passengers at the cockpit door and someone yell "Roll it," not "Let's roll."

My questions are more or less tests of research, nothing personal about it.
Click to expand...

Several people responded to your questions on this issue, and the general consensus was that we really can't know for sure what exactly took place on Flight 93 just before it crashed.

What we do know is that Flight 93 was crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA. The overwhelming preponderous of evidence supports this fact.
 
If these flights didn't crash and instead were flown to a concealed location, somewhere that was already prepped to receive the planes in secrecy, then this means that the flights really didn't need to be hijacked in the first place, did they?
 
twinstead said:
Ultimately though it makes absolutely NO difference. If there was some kind of cover up or inside job, don't you think the official report would be sure to include a definite "let's roll"? I would imagine that if it wasn't in the official report it's because there wasn't sufficient evidence one way or the other.
Click to expand...

The Commission Report states explicitly that a passenger yelled out, "Roll it" because that's what was on the transcript. "Let's roll" never appears in the report.

I won't deny it could be considered a legitimate question per the OP. Did Todd actually say "let's roll" or was it some kind of misunderstanding? But, certainly it means absolutely nothing towards evidence of an inside job. It just means that the official investigation also had questions about it
Click to expand...

The passenger "counter-attack" and "Let's Roll" are the two most indelible images of Flight 93. If the reality is that the passengers never made it inside the cockpit and Beamer never yelled "Let's roll," you can see why the Bush administration wouldn't exactly publicize this. I've read the report, and I had trouble finding it's brief discussion of the passenger revolt.

This is relevant to an Inside Job discussion because this exaggeration combined with a lack of evidence in the ditch further casts doubt on the official story of Flight 93.

I've heard many people say that they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but they think the plane was shot down, an unfortunate but necessary act. If this is true than the "crash scene" was certainly faked.
 
johnny karate said:
Several people responded to your questions on this issue, and the general consensus was that we really can't know for sure what exactly took place on Flight 93 just before it crashed.

What we do know is that Flight 93 was crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA. The overwhelming preponderous of evidence supports this fact.
Click to expand...

And a basic understanding that things traveling at 800 ft/second at a 40 degree angle into earth won't leave much of any plane in any recognizeable state. I'm amazed they still found a 500 pound section of the frame after such a high inclined crash. This idea that the plane should have been mostly intact is silly
 
RedIbis said:
I've heard many people say that they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but they think the plane was shot down, an unfortunate but necessary act. If this is true than the "crash scene" was certainly faked.
Click to expand...

So a few of your buddies down at the pub qualifies as expert opinion now?

So they shot it down and faked the crash scene, right? Did they fake the scene before they shot it down or did they rush out and fake it after they had shot it down?
 
Last edited:
In this tread it looks like you are saying flight 93 is parked on anarctica.
Do you stand by that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom