Flight 93

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I was in Homestead Fla on Aug 24, 1992, and took a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew. I had to dig my family out from under a wall during the eye of the storm, then I got caught outside as the second band of the hurricane came over. I remember it all as vividly as if it happened 10 minutes ago.

Where's your evidence that you saved your family? pics? newspaper report? anything!

Prove any fact I provided is wrong. Go on now! I'll be waiting...

Police officers and firefighters rescued people on that day.
We have evidence they did.
Hey! I am just asking Q's here!!!

 

[Tomblvd]

I live about 20 miles as the crow flies from the crash site. There is a salient fact about the geography of the area that makes a shoot down highly unlikely. If you look at an aerial picture of the area you can plainly see that in the general vicinity of where the plane went down you have a cluster of many small towns. The area is sparsely populated for sure, but it is undoubtedly populated. However, if you follow the general NW to SE track of flight 93, you will see that only a few miles past the crash site is a fairly heavily wooded area south of the turnpike. And this terrain continues well into Maryland.

If a pilot was getting reading to shoot down an airliner, there would be no reason for him not to wait the few minutes it would have taken the plane to get over unpopulated woodlands to down it.

A minor point, but one that still bugs me to this day.

 

[Reheat]

This whole idea of a shoot down is one of the many loony ideas of the Troof Movement (BM).

There are several reasons none of the information presented so far by witnesses even remotely provides evidence of a shoot down. Besides the obvious FDR data which shows no abnormality with UA 93 and the limited debris field noted, here are some other factors....

First of all, there were no fighters in the vicinity, NONE. 84 Rades data shows none and FAA did not handle or report any fighter traffic i.e. there was nothing there. In 2001 there WERE NO STEALTH air to air fighter assets, so if anything was there it would have been seen.

If there had been fighters in the area, the folks in that vicinity would be reporting other things. They would have seen a spectacular airshow. At the point of UA 93's location it would not have been urgent that it be shot down without attempting other methods of intervention. There are several methods of intervention that would have been attempted unless the threat was imminent and urgent - it wasn't. The fighters would have tried those, first.

An air-to-air missile does not make a screeching sound. If anything the residents would have heard a whoooosh or a low roar accompanied by a VERY LOUD sonic boom. (I probably shouldn't mention this because they will find someone who heard a boom, sure as shootin'.)

Notice I used the plural fighters above. If fighters were in the area there would have been two. Air Defense fighters NEVER EVER work alone. There would be NO EXCEPTION to this.

All of these speculations and mysteries from troofers are just a blatant display of pure unadulterated ignorance. They are ignorant of physics, they are ignorant of reality, and they have absolutely no common sense.

 

[OldTigerCub]

This whole idea of a shoot down is one of the many loony ideas of the Troof Movement (BM).

There are several reasons none of the information presented so far by witnesses even remotely provides evidence of a shoot down. Besides the obvious FDR data which shows no abnormality with UA 93 and the limited debris field noted, here are some other factors....

First of all, there were no fighters in the vicinity, NONE. 84 Rades data shows none and FAA did not handle or report any fighter traffic i.e. there was nothing there. In 2001 there WERE NO STEALTH air to air fighter assets, so if anything was there it would have been seen.

If there had been fighters in the area, the folks in that vicinity would be reporting other things. They would have seen a spectacular airshow. At the point of UA 93's location it would not have been urgent that it be shot down without attempting other methods of intervention. There are several methods of intervention that would have been attempted unless the threat was imminent and urgent - it wasn't. The fighters would have tried those, first.

An air-to-air missile does not make a screeching sound. If anything the residents would have heard a whoooosh or a low roar accompanied by a VERY LOUD sonic boom. (I probably shouldn't mention this because they will find someone who heard a boom, sure as shootin'.)

Notice I used the plural fighters above. If fighters were in the area there would have been two. Air Defense fighters NEVER EVER work alone. There would be NO EXCEPTION to this.

All of these speculations and mysteries from troofers are just a blatant display of pure unadulterated ignorance. They are ignorant of physics, they are ignorant of reality, and they have absolutely no common sense.

To add a few facts, the closest fighter to Flight 93 was a D.C. Air National Guard F16 piloted by Billy Hutchinson. He was about 180 miles away just a couple of minutes before Flight 93 crashed. His fighter was armed with a little more than 100 rounds of training ammunition for his machine gun (20 mm cannon?) but carried no missiles. By the time Flight 93 was spotted and identified as a threat, neither Hutchinson nor any of his wingmen were within range to do anything before the airplane crashed in Shanksville.

 

[gumboot]

At 10:03 only four fighter aircraft in the entire North-east United States were armed with air-to-air missiles. We know this with certainty because the USAF began recalling training fighters to their home bases shortly after the second impact. The only fighters thus airborne were two F-15s from the 102d FW, Massachusetts ANG which were flying over Manhattan at 1003 and two F-16s from the 119th FW, North Dakota ANG which had just arrived to establish a Combat Air Patrol over Washington DC.

The next armed fighters that became airborne were two F-16s from the 113th Wing, District of Columbia ANG which became airborne at about 10:15 and joined the 119th FW fighters over Washington DC.

 

[gumboot]

To add a few facts, the closest fighter to Flight 93 was a D.C. Air National Guard F16 piloted by Billy Hutchinson. He was about 180 miles away just a couple of minutes before Flight 93 crashed. His fighter was armed with a little more than 100 rounds of training ammunition for his machine gun (20 mm cannon?) but carried no missiles. By the time Flight 93 was spotted and identified as a threat, neither Hutchinson nor any of his wingmen were within range to do anything before the airplane crashed in Shanksville.

Are you sure about that?

Hutchinson was on a training mission in North Carolina that morning and didn't land back at Andrews until after Sasseville and Lucky took off in F-16s armed only with guns. Those two didn't take off until about 10:05 so Hutchinson couldn't have got airborne until some time after that. Also, according to the 121st FS's safety officer (Lt Col Thompson), Hutchinson's aircraft had no weapons whatsoever when it was sent into the air.

At 10:03 there were three F-16s from Langley over the Pentagon, which is about 135 miles from Shanksville - I would have thought they were the closest. Of course they had no idea UA93 had even been hijacked, let alone was headed for Washington DC.

 

[bynmdsue]

Clinton should have been impeached at Waco & Ruby Ridge and never been left in office long enough to even know Lewinsky......

Why in Hell should Clinton be impeached for Ruby Ridge?

 

[beachnut]

...
Clinton should have been impeached at Waco & Ruby Ridge and never been left in office long enough to even know Lewinsky......

This kind of logic is why your ideas on 9/11 are all wrong. You blame Waco on Clinton instead of David the Christ Koresh, the Jesus with weapons. What was Koresh thinking. Is this the kind of gun Jesus would shoot the ATF/Romans with?

Does this mean your failed conclusions extend to other events? YES!@

 

[TC329]

I've never read such utter drivel. Maybe Lee Purbaugh believes he saw what he describes, but I can assure you he certainly did not.

No, you most certainly cannot assure me he did not. How can you tell me or anyone else what Lee Purbaugh saw? You are not Lee Purbaugh and you were nowhere near Shanksville on 9/11.

Look, this plane was descending at close to 500mph. That's around 730 feet per second. Allow me to repeat that - it's important: That's around 730 FEET PER SECOND. If Lee Purbaugh did first notice the plane at around 50ft above him he most certainly did not "see the last seconds of Flight 93". To be precise, he saw the last 0.07 seconds, if he saw anything. He wouldn't have had time to even recognize what he saw as an aeroplane, let alone observe it's angle of descent, "rock side to side" then "suddenly dip". Gee, what I'd give to see a Boeing 757 "rock side to side" and dip its nose all in the space of 0.07 seconds. What a highly reactive plane that would be! But let's give Mr Purbaugh a degree of latitude. Let's say he misjudged the height of the plane. Let's allow him, say, a margin of error of ... oh, I don't know ... let's say ... well ... 1000%. No, tell you what, let's say 1,400%! Let's put the plane at 750 feet. Mr Purbaugh now has a full ONE SECOND to observe and assimilate the plane's angle of descent, "rock from side to side" and "dip its nose". It just took you around FOUR SECONDS to read that last short sentence. Four times longer than Mr Purbaugh had to observe the plane!

All of your information comes from a FDR , that if the eyewitnesses are all telling the truth, is a 100% fabrication.

So, when Mr Purbaugh goes on to say:

well, on what reasonable basis should we accept it as anything close to reliable? He apparently observes a plane "circle the area twice then fly over the horizon", which must have taken how long, minutes, but he "didn't get a good look at it", but he's capable of observing and recalling the intricate manoeuvres of a 100 tonne jet airliner over the space of 0.07 seconds. Absolutely laughable!

Not laughable in anyway shape or form. Mr. Purbaugh obviously did not want to discuss the small white drone plane which had a 15-20' wingspan. The drone plane did not fly over Mr. Purbaugh, the plane that hit the ground did. Whatever Lee Purbaugh saw caused him to jump in his truck and take off. He had no interest in looking for survivors or anything else. The only thing on Lee Purbaugh's mind was getting the hell out of there. On his way out he stopped a truck he was passing and pointed in the direction of the crash and told the trucks occupants a plane had crashed.

What this account does, as convincingly as can be, is demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that people's accounts of what they see often bears very little, and in this case absolutely no, I would suggest, resemblance to what actually happened. Anybody who seeks to rely on Lee Purbaugh's account of what he claims he saw is living in the most unreaslistic of places, and should be utterly embarrassed by their naivety and complete detachment from reality. Are you still with us, TC?!

Lee Purbaugh is the most trumpeted witness when comes to arguing against a no planer. So tell me something what do you propose Lee Purbaugh saw in your fantasy world which you invent to claim Lee Purbaugh saw a plane for less than 1 second?

Would Mr. Purbaugh have even been able to correctly identify it as an airplane?

Or is he lying about even seeing it?

Would he have completely missed the airplane all together had he blinked?
Is this your argument?

 

[TC329]

This whole idea of a shoot down is one of the many loony ideas of the Troof Movement (BM).

There are several reasons none of the information presented so far by witnesses even remotely provides evidence of a shoot down. Besides the obvious FDR data which shows no abnormality with UA 93 and the limited debris field noted, here are some other factors.....

Your FDR data doesn't account for the plane turning around and flying North over Indian Lake.

Also you have no clue where Lee Purbaugh was working when the plane flew directly over his head.

 

[TC329]

This kind of logic is why your ideas on 9/11 are all wrong. You blame Waco on Clinton instead of David the Christ Koresh, the Jesus with weapons. What was Koresh thinking. Is this the kind of gun Jesus would shoot the ATF/Romans with?

Does this mean your failed conclusions extend to other events? YES!@

Do you approve of burning men, women, & children to death for their religious beliefs?

Or are unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse good enough to burn men, women, & children to death? Know that every survivor including the children say to this day David Koresh never abused children. Why don't you find out who invented that claim and why?

Are you on the wrong side of every event?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"All of your information comes from a FDR , that if the eyewitnesses are all telling the truth, is a 100% fabrication. "

What makes you a fraud is that you keep trying to use unreliable evidence to dismiss reliable evidence. And why would you do that? Because you are trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion instead of actually investigating.

This is what puts you in the nutjob category and hence never being taken seriously.

But again, please explain to us the events that happened that day. Let's see how well it holds up. This is the 3rd request.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Your FDR data doesn't account for the plane turning around and flying North over Indian Lake.

Also you have no clue where Lee Purbaugh was working when the plane flew directly over his head.

Your witness testimony does not take into account that the plane never did that.

 

[bynmdsue]

C'mon TC answer the Ruby Ridge question or are you simply long on rhetoric and short on facts?

 

[OldTigerCub]

Are you sure about that?

Hutchinson was on a training mission in North Carolina that morning and didn't land back at Andrews until after Sasseville and Lucky took off in F-16s armed only with guns. Those two didn't take off until about 10:05 so Hutchinson couldn't have got airborne until some time after that. Also, according to the 121st FS's safety officer (Lt Col Thompson), Hutchinson's aircraft had no weapons whatsoever when it was sent into the air.

At 10:03 there were three F-16s from Langley over the Pentagon, which is about 135 miles from Shanksville - I would have thought they were the closest. Of course they had no idea UA93 had even been hijacked, let alone was headed for Washington DC.

If my source of information is correct, yes. I just finished reading Lynn Spencer's book, "Touching History". In her account, Billy Hutchinson had just finished refueling from a KC-135 (?) tanker in the vicinity of Washington when the call came to look for an inbound target, Flight 93, on his radar (10:00 am). The account is from "Touching History" pages 216 - 222. He had no weapons when he arrived from the training flight, but had time to have his gun loaded, but no missiles mounted, before taking off again.
Edit: I'll re-check the portions of the book that are applicable tomorrow...and will stand corrected if I misstated any of what I related...I found it absolutely fascinating reading, though, and she seems to have paid great attention to detail.

 

[TC329]

C'mon TC answer the Ruby Ridge question or are you simply long on rhetoric and short on facts?

My bad Ruby Ridge was Bush Sr. Feel better?

 

[TC329]

Your witness testimony does not take into account that the plane never did that.

Oh yeah how can I forget Johnnyclueless and his magical "everyone was hallucinating in Shanksville on 9/11" theories.......

 

[OldTigerCub]

Your FDR data doesn't account for the plane turning around and flying North over Indian Lake.

Also you have no clue where Lee Purbaugh was working when the plane flew directly over his head.

Possibly because the FDR data is a much more reliable source of information than the testimony of eyewitnesses. In any air crash investigation the physical evidence must always be given more scrutiny and credibility than the testimony of eyewitnesses. Since the track of the FDR shows a direct approach and crash from the Northwest, any investigator is going to dismiss recollections by observers on the ground that don't correlate to the physical evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh yeah how can I forget Johnnyclueless and his magical "everyone was hallucinating in Shanksville on 9/11" theories.......

Oh how can we forget TC and his "I forgot about the scientific studies that prove witness testimony to be unreliable" or his "Oh I forgot that the NTSB refuses to use eyewitness testimony because it's not reliable".

One thing that is absolutely NOT in question is how memory works and the fact that people do NOT remember big incidents such as this correctly.


NOW, can you show us something that shows the FDR data to be unreliable?

Or is it back to TC "Oh 1000s of people ere all involved in a big cover up to betray their own country for no real purpose but to help some mysterious elites get richer"..

You could just go to the authorities with your evidence, or start a lawsuit. If it's so compelling, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and then you can argue with the experts who can present the studies on human memory instead of rambling on with pot shots in an internet forum.

 

[gumboot]

If my source of information is correct, yes. I just finished reading Lynn Spencer's book, "Touching History". In her account, Billy Hutchinson had just finished refueling from a KC-135 (?) tanker in the vicinity of Washington when the call came to look for an inbound target, Flight 93, on his radar (10:00 am). The account is from "Touching History" pages 216 - 222. He had no weapons when he arrived from the training flight, but had time to have his gun loaded, but no missiles mounted, before taking off again.
Edit: I'll re-check the portions of the book that are applicable tomorrow...and will stand corrected if I misstated any of what I related...I found it absolutely fascinating reading, though, and she seems to have paid great attention to detail.

This would be quite an interesting issue if the books says what you claim it does - because it's in direct conflict with what we've previously been told about events.

I'm still waiting for the time to get to a book store to buy it, but it will definitely be an interesting read. Did the researcher rely entirely on interviews, or did they also use media reports and things like the NORAD recordings?

I don't know if you've read this article but if you have you can probably understand why there may be some conflicts here.

The aircraft that the pilots assumed was UA93 approaching just after 10am - flying low and fast down the Potomac River towards Washington DC - wasn't UA93 because UA93 was neither flying low, nor along the Potomac.