Flight 93

[gumboot]

As ktesibios points out, Gobney wasn't even an alert pilot that day, and the 119th FW fighters never got anywhere near UA93.

The only quibble I have with the Popular Mechanics article is that while Gibney might have been a LTCOL at the time of their article, on 9/11 he was a MAJ, so that aspect of the theory isn't actually wrong.

 

[aggle-rithm]

He said he was down not that he crashed.

Timeline for United Airlines Flight

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962910
10:15 NEADS called Washington Center to report:
NEADS: I also want to give you a heads-up, Washington.
FAA (DC): Go ahead.
NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
FAA: Yeah, he's down.
NEADS: He's down?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...
FAA: He did not land.
NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?
FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.
FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

Yes, these government types always use very precise terminology when they speak on the phone. That's why the FAA knew immediately when he used the word "down", that the plane had been shot down. That's why they said, "When did he land?", which, as we all know, is code for "oh, so you shot him down. Good!"

 

[twinstead]

Yes, these government types always use very precise terminology when they speak on the phone. That's why the FAA knew immediately when he used the word "down", that the plane had been shot down. That's why they said, "When did he land?", which, as we all know, is code for "oh, so you shot him down. Good!"

 

[gumboot]

Yes, these government types always use very precise terminology when they speak on the phone. That's why the FAA knew immediately when he used the word "down", that the plane had been shot down. That's why they said, "When did he land?", which, as we all know, is code for "oh, so you shot him down. Good!"

The absurdity of this is that it was NEADS who were handling the fighters that "supposedly" shot the aircraft down, so it should be the FAA ringing NEADS going "What's going on?" not the other way around.

If anything this is just more evidence that UA93 was not shot down.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The absurdity of this is that it was NEADS who were handling the fighters that "supposedly" shot the aircraft down, so it should be the FAA ringing NEADS going "What's going on?" not the other way around.

.

Ah! I had it backwards.

You win, truthers! Damn you all to hell, YOU WIN!!!!

 

[sylvan8798]

I'm waiting for this particular line of kook claim to explain how such a shootdown didn't register on the 'Black Box'.
After all even the voice recorder in the cockpit had no evidence of the sound that such an event would generate..

Aww Georgie, of course they just removed that sound from the relevant tapes. Sheesh! Don't you think if we have technology to blow up buildings from space without people noticing it that we can remove unwanted sounds from recordings? Sheesh!

 

[I Ratant]

Aww Georgie, of course they just removed that sound from the relevant tapes. Sheesh! Don't you think if we have technology to blow up buildings from space without people noticing it that we can remove unwanted sounds from recordings? Sheesh!

.
An explosion would show up as major instantaneous differences in the various pressure readings the airplane needs and monitors for flight.
Altitude, airspeed, rate of climb, engine pressure ratios, etc.
Had there been a strike on one (or more) of the control surfaces, those readings would change in unison with the pressure readings.
It would be a major hack job to get all of the interconnected readings to jibe with normal conditions to mask an explosion.
That didn't happen on TWA 800 either, another "missile downed" airplane.
And an Itavia DC-9 was shot down by an Italian Air Force F-104 firing a missile (inadvertently) which left unmistakable penetration damage on the airframe.

 

[jammonius]

The leader of pilots for truth, Balsamo, can't hit a building in the safety of a simulator and his fellow failed pilots in his paranoid cult claim they can't do it. So we have bad pilots, the terrorists on 911, and we have worse pilots, pilots for truth lead by Balsamo the 2,223 g math idiot.

You choose to repeat what failed pilots say, and after 8 years fail to understand the events of 911.

Care to comment on the OP, opening post, any time soon?

All of them!

Why do you lack evidence? My grand kid said the fuselage I showed you was an aircraft part, and you said it was a horse trailer. You know the jet fuel I used in those planes above, I started it all with a spark. Have you got anything about 911 right? no

beachnut,

The personal nature of your above post gave me pause for a lot of concern. Initially, I did not think it appropriate to respond to you. I have now reassessed my position.

First of all, you engage in blatant disconnect from reality between the piloting skill the 9/11 myth requires on the one hand and the lack of that level of skill in the hijackers, on the other.

The whole issue of 9/11 consists in the failure to explain it and its dependency for acceptance upon an appeal to jingoism and a suspension of the capacity for reason.

The remainder of your post consists in an attempt to reinforce jingoism with a personal touch.

It is difficult to respond to personal posts because you may, in making it personal, be said to be putting a chip on your shoulder and daring one to knock it off.

I will here knock that chip off of your shoulder, beachnut. And, as you reach to pick it up, be mindful that you might be kicked when you expose your butt to the proper angle.

Your post strikes me as being a strong and arrogant attempt to stake out a claim to sole possession of the ability to apprehend that which is "normal." You try to convert the norm into an extreme form of jingoism and of jingoistic expression reaching not just to you and your generation, but well beyond that into the future.

You envision a militaristic future for America.

I here interpose an objection to that form of jingoism.

"No" you may not have that unopposed. Your vision is not worthy of support.

Generations to come will include others who not only disagree with the militaristic glorification you have tried to assert and to establish in your post but who will challenge its validity.

These representatives of America's future will call attention to the fact that militarism and the glorification of it, even in the context you described with your relics to the Vietnam era led, not to glory, but to abject failure, depicted as follows:

Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves that the little child in the photo upon whose head you placed a helmet is being conditioned to accept this:

and this:

leading to this:

None of that is acceptable.

So, beachnut, please know that your vision of the future is strongly opposed, as is your misrepresentation of the facts of 9/11.

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,

The personal nature of your above post gave me pause for a lot of concern. Initially, I did not think it appropriate to respond to you. I have now reassessed my position.

First of all, you engage in blatant disconnect from reality between the piloting skill the 9/11 myth requires on the one hand and the lack of that level of skill in the hijackers, on the other.

For someone that is so ignorant of what happened on 9/11 and the relevant history and science, you sure type a lot.

bin Laden declared war on America and killing Americans starting in the 90s. In 2001 he directed and funded 19 Arab Islamists to hijack 4 commercial jets and crash the. They crashed them into three buildings and a corn field, killing about 3,000 people.

 

[cyclonic]

beachnut,
I will here knock that chip off of your shoulder, beachnut. And, as you reach to pick it up, be mindful that you might be kicked when you expose your butt to the proper angle.

Is it a potato, paint or a thermite chip?

Your post strikes me as being a strong and arrogant attempt to stake out a claim to sole possession of the ability to apprehend that which is "normal." You try to convert the norm into an extreme form of jingoism and of jingoistic expression reaching not just to you and your generation, but well beyond that into the future.

SAY WHAT?

You envision a militaristic future for America.

What do you envision for America?
the white flag flying over the 'black house'?
'to allah we serve' printed on money?
everyone praying to allah 6 times a day facing mecca?
female circumcision?
burkha fashion parades?


Bin laden declares war on America.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut,

Yes...
jammonius, you got some fact to support anything on 911? Let me guess... you have off topic junk, no real evidence to support your horse-trailer claim.

The personal nature of your above post gave me pause for a lot of concern. Initially, I did not think it appropriate to respond to you. I have now reassessed my position.

Not personal, I said your ideas on 911 are based on hearsay from idiots.

You implied I was not a pilot, but I am and qualified to fly heavy jets; I instructed in heavy jets. I was a USAF Instructor Pilot.

First of all, you engage in blatant disconnect from reality between the piloting skill the 9/11 myth requires on the one hand and the lack of that level of skill in the hijackers, on the other.

There were zero piloting skills used on 911. You point at building and hit it. A kid off the street with no training can do it. I have flown kids and adults with no training in flying aircraft and they were able to aim the aircraft with no flying skills. The flying skills on 911 observed, the hardest maneuver was a turn, and the terrorist you apologize for did the turns poorly; they also exhibited poor throttle control resulting in arriving at DC too high and having to turn 330 degrees to get down, in the sloppiest turn I have ever seen, kids without training have done better. But the point is the 4 terrorist pilots you apologize for with moronic lies had training, LOTS o training and they were qualified pilots. So your point is moronic like your failed conclusions.

The whole issue of 9/11 consists in the failure to explain it and its dependency for acceptance upon an appeal to jingoism and a suspension of the capacity for reason.

No, you have the lies and apologize for terrorists and you CAN'T understand physics! Flight 93 impacted at 600 mph, and you can't figure it out.

Nope, you have moronic lies, not phyiscs. This is why you don't understand 911, one of many reasons. If you get physics the crash of 93 will make sense, until then you are lost making up lies and poorly apologizing for terrorists.

The remainder of your post consists in an attempt to reinforce jingoism with a personal touch.

No, it was to get you to post off topic, it worked. You can't present evidence since you don't have any so you post about me. Cool.
You think a fuselage is a horse trailer. You don't have any useful knowledge on 911, you seem to understand only horse-trailers and BS.

It is difficult to respond to personal posts because you may, in making it personal, be said to be putting a chip on your shoulder and daring one to knock it off.

So you are a pilot and an engineer? Get smart! There are people here with just the ability to research and use rational thinking; so my qualifications to fly heavy jets, and engineering background are not any better than anyone else. There are people who are not pilots and engineers who understand 911 and they do it better than I because they are smart, skeptical, and able to do research and logical thinking. Not sure why you picked lies and delusions, what is your background and why did education fail you.
The fuselage was easy; you came up with horse-trailer. Then you sling the stuff from the bottom of the horsetrailer as your "evidence".

I will here knock that chip off of your shoulder, beachnut. And, as you reach to pick it up, be mindful that you might be kicked when you expose your butt to the proper angle.

I don't care if you kick my butt, if based on evidence you can't catch me, you can't catch any of the JREF posters here who have you on ignore the second you posted your first idiotic lie based on hearsay, fantasy and your personal lack of knowledge on 911.

Flight 93 was not shot down and you can't comment on it? You have no idea what a 600 mph impact with the ground at 40 degrees looks like so you make up lies or repeat lies from idiots on 911.

Your post strikes me as being a strong and arrogant attempt to stake out a claim to sole possession of the ability to apprehend that which is "normal." You try to convert the norm into an extreme form of jingoism and of jingoistic expression reaching not just to you and your generation, but well beyond that into the future.

Being patriotic is what to you? I see if you don't make up lies about Bush and the government you are too patriotic. Well you don't have to worry about being patriotic you apologize for terrorists. So you are safe from being suspected of supporting your country or the military, so go ahead spit on my service to my country; be all you can be and spread lies and false information out of ignorance on 911. Horse-trailer.

You envision a militaristic future for America.

Wrong again, you can't 911 right, you failed to get me right.

The topic is in the OP, did you read the OP.

Do you think 93 got shot down?

I here interpose an objection to that form of jingoism.

How can you be this silly? You are making up lies about the death of Passengers on 93 and the best you have on knowledge is saying a fuselage part is a horse-trailer and now you are wasting a post on me instead of gaining knowledge to fight the liars you took your ideas from. You are attacking me weakly when you need to attack the idiots who put the lies in your head. Why do you accept the lies from 911 truth? What happen to flight 93? The RADAR shows it ending right were it impacted. The FDR shows the speed at 600 mph. Do you ever think you will use evidence instead of hearsay and lies?

"No" you may not have that unopposed. Your vision is not worthy of support.

What are you talking about?

I was operations officer for 15 crews in Desert Storm, I don't know a single crew member who wanted to go to war. I don't know any soldier that wants to go to war, we are prepared to go to war.

Generations to come will include others who not only disagree with the militaristic glorification you have tried to assert and to establish in your post but who will challenge its validity.

Were those girls abused? They look beat up and afraid of something.

I show you some flight training photos with no guns, and two F-4 after being refueled by crew R-141(the crew I was on) and you make fun of my service to my country and make up more lies.
Flight 93, why don't you understand the impact?

These representatives of America's future will call attention to the fact that militarism and the glorification of it, even in the context you described with your relics to the Vietnam era led, not to glory, but to abject failure, depicted as follows:

I did not fight in Vietnam. Are you one of those who treated the soldiers coming home bad!? Are you a military hater and anti-government too. You know you can vote and change your government. The military is volunteer now and when I joined; you are anti-volunteer, anti-military and anti-government; excuse me for serving my country and thinking for myself.

You are in the army of ignorance on 911 and you volunteered to spew stupid ideas and delusions on 911. I hate ignorance, why do you support it?

We lost no battle in Vietnam? We left, it is over. What does 911 have to do with Vietnam? And the fact you have no knowledge to help you figure out 911 and flight 93?

Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves that the little child in the photo upon whose head you placed a helmet is being conditioned to accept this:
and this:
leading to this:

Love it, you are supporting your Flight 93 ideas based on Slim riding a nuke to the ground in a FICTIONAL movie. Your moronic Fiction on 93, like saying the fuselages is a horse-trailer, is due to your fixation on fictional movies?

None of that is acceptable.

You did not like Dr Strangelove? I was only a FICTIONAL movie. You don't like my service to my country? That is why you make up lies about 911? Flight 93 crashed in PA so far you lack of evidence and knowledge have not dented that fact.

So, beachnut, please know that your vision of the future is strongly opposed, as is your misrepresentation of the facts of 9/11.

I know! You are proof.

My vision of the future is where people seek knowledge and education and think for themselves. You are not only apposed to my vision you are the personification of the opposite of my vision.

The terrorists pilots were all trained and had FAA certifications - my point is the flying they did was basic, required nothing past what the learned in the first few flight and what many people can do without training. This is a fact and if you find a pilot who disagree he is either arrogant in the way that no one can fly but pilots, or they are dirt dumb stupid. Flight 93 terrorist pilot drove the aircraft into the ground, the FDR shows his inputs on the controls; makes the shoot down a lie. What do you think? Got the FDR stuff?

Why do you think a fuselage part is a horse-trailer? Why do you lack knowledge and the ability to form rational conclusions based on research, or the lack of research? Do you have any evidence to support your views Flight 93?

I base my conclusions on Flight 93 based on my knowledge from being a trained aircraft accident investigator. The second I saw the crash I knew without the FDR or other infomraitno it was a high speed 30 to 50 degee inmact with a plane intact. Sorry, the military sent me to school on your dime. Thank you.

I base my conclusions on Flt 93 based on physics; thank you Coach Stubbs, you were my football coach and Physics teacher, I made an A in college due to Coach Stubbs, exempted the final. Physics is cool! Even if you will be digging ditches your whole life or working the bottom 40.

I based my conclusion on Flt 93 on my flying experience, flying since 1973, with heavy jet experience since 1976, I understand when 911 truth lies about flying stuff on 911 due to experience and training from the USAF.

I based my conclusions on Flt 93 based on the evidence from the FDR, CVR, FAA tapes, and RADAR. Evidence.

You base your conclusions on Flt 93 based on hearsay, lies, and idiotic delusions, like your horse-trailer, a delusion.

I am not emotional, I am rational, if I appear emotional, it must be my enthusiasm for education and gaining knowledge. You are emotional by using failed opinions from other people to form your conclusion on Flt 93.

You failed to see what Forum you joined;you bring delusions instead of critical thinking, you bring lies instead of being skeptical, and you ignore science.

 

[jammonius]

beachnut,

Thanks for your reply. Here's the deal: This thread presupposes there was a FL93 and that it crashed either as the common myth would have it, via passenger intervention; or, alternativley, by having been shot down by a missile intercept. That is a false choice, nothing more, nothing less. In logic, one cannot presume what has not been proven to have occurred. That is why my posts have been, are and will remain relevant to the topic.

Here's a bit more to the deal. I now have reason to believe that you can distinguish the real from the unreal, when you are put into a position where doing so has a purpose.

The 9/11 myth scenario is so preposterous and so blatantly unproven in any of its stupid particulars as to no longer require banter back and forth about what did or did not happen, supported by various links to newspaper and other indirect sources. The normal sources that one would rely on, for instance, to prove a jetliner crash are not available with respect either to FL 93 or to any of the other phantom flights on 9/11.

Your boy, Yoda, or Mark Roberts, or whatever his name is, is not an expert on 9/11 and is not a debunker of anything. Most of his sources, like those of every other citizen activist, on any side of the issue, are all secondary, with the possible exception of the photographs. You, for instance, posted up two or three times a photograph of an empty field, containing, as its most prominent feature, 3 pink circles that were sun spots and you sought to use that photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

You are not incapable of photographic analysis. You know as well as anyone else your photo provided no proof of a jetliner crash.

So, the issue is simply this, you can continue to support the common myth for as long as it fulfills some need to do so, such as your sense of patriotism, your refusal to come to grips with living in a country that is controlled by unseen forces who would pull off a 9/11 for reasons of their own.

The future of the kids that you and I have posted up depends upon the current generation of adults coming to their senses in time to make things right before they get a lot worse.

So, no more back and forth about what your newspaper clippings say versus another set of newspaper clippings, least of all the Chinese Youth Daily, which stands as the source for the stupid proposition that WTC steel was shipped to China. No more of that crap.

The official version of events of 9/11 is totally false and enough people have said that for it no longer to be an item in contention. There was no FL 93 and the photo you have posted up what, 3 times now, is proof enough there was no jetliner crash at that site. Thus, alternative claims about how it crashed are presumptuous in the extreme and that is the point.

 

[JimBenArm]

beachnut,

Thanks for your reply. Here's the deal: This thread presupposes there was a FL93 and that it crashed. In logic, one cannot presume what has not been proven to have occurred. That is why my posts have been, are and will remain relevant to the topic.

Here's a bit more to the deal. I now have reason to believe that you can distinguish the real from the unreal, when you are put into a position where doing so has a purpose.

The 9/11 myth scenario is so preposterous and so blatantly unproven in any of its stupid particulars as to no longer require banter back and forth about what did or did not happen, supported by various links to newspaper and other indirect sources. The normal sources that one would rely on, for instance, to prove a jetliner crash are not available with respect either to FL 93 or to any of the other phantom flights on 9/11.

Your boy, Yoda, or Mark Roberts, or whatever his name is, is not an expert on 9/11 and is not a debunker of anything. Most of his sources, like those of every other citizen activist, on any side of the issue, are all secondary, with the possible exception of the photographs. You, for instance, posted up two or three times a photograph of an empty field, containing, as its most prominent feature, 3 pink circles that were sun spots and you sought to use that photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

You are not incapable of photographic analysis. You know as well as anyone else your photo provided no proof of a jetliner crash.

So, the issue is simply this, you can continue to support the common myth for as long as it fulfills some need to do so, such as your sense of patriotism, your refusal to come to grips with living in a country that is controlled by unseen forces who would pull off a 9/11 for reasons of their own.

The future of the kids that you and I have posted up depends upon the current generation of adults coming to their senses in time to make things right before they get a lot worse.

So, no more back and forth about what your newspaper clippings say versus another set of newspaper clippings, least of all the Chinese Youth Daily, which stands as the source for the stupid proposition that WTC steel was shipped to China. No more of that crap.

The official version of events of 9/11 is totally false and enough people have said that for it no longer to be an item in contention. There was no FL 93 and the photo you have posted up what, 3 times now, is proof enough there was no jetliner crash at that site. Thus, alternative claims about how it crashed are presumptuous in the extreme and that is the point.

This is easily the most paranoid, stupid nonsense I've seen in months.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it!

 

[Hokulele]

This is easily the most paranoid, stupid nonsense I've seen in months.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it!

Wait, jammonius is claiming there was no flight 93? At all?

 

[twinstead]

seriously, jammonius. I'm not buying whatever you appear to have on sale. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

 

[I Ratant]

Wait, jammonius is claiming there was no flight 93? At all?

.
Ya know, there isn't a facepalm strong enough for that one!

 

[jammonius]

Wait, jammonius is claiming there was no flight 93? At all?

hokulele,

Wait a minute. As I said, beachnut has posted the following photo several times in support of the claim it represents the FL93 crash site:

That photo is not hard to interpret. It shows no evidence of a jetliner crash. And, that photo is merely representative of much of the rest of the newspaper clippings on the subject. True, you can find newspaper clippings that say otherwise. But, the point is, newspaper clippings do not prove or disprove a jetliner crash.

What is important, though, is that no matter how hard you try, there is no information other than newspaper clippings here or there that address the issue of jetliner crashes on 9/11. The alleged crashes were not ever investigated by NTSB and that is because there were no jetliner crashes.

Get over it, hokulele. This is not a matter of doubt. The 9/11 myth persists for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact the myth is false. The myth continues because not enough people are willing to say "enough is enough" yet.

When are you going to come to your senses? Will it be soon enough to matter?

 

[Hokulele]

So when you stated "There was no FL 93", what exactly did you mean?

 

[JimBenArm]

hokulele,

Wait a minute. As I said, beachnut has posted the following photo several times in support of the claim it represents the FL93 crash site:

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg[/qimg]

That photo is not hard to interpret. It shows no evidence of a jetliner crash. And, that photo is merely representative of much of the rest of the newspaper clippings on the subject. True, you can find newspaper clippings that say otherwise. But, the point is, newspaper clippings do not prove or disprove a jetliner crash.

What is important, though, is that no matter how hard you try, there is no information other than newspaper clippings here or there that address the issue of jetliner crashes on 9/11. The alleged crashes were not ever investigated by NTSB and that is because there were no jetliner crashes.

Get over it, hokulele. This is not a matter of doubt. The 9/11 myth persists for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact the myth is false. The myth continues because not enough people are willing to say "enough is enough" yet.

When are you going to come to your senses? Will it be soon enough to matter?

Yeah, we're the ones who are delusional.
That's the only reason no one accepts your ideas.
Not that they are bat-crap crazy. That COULDN'T be the reason!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The alleged crashes were not ever investigated by NTSB and that is because there were no jetliner crashes.

This is an outright error. The NTSB provided both an analysis of the FDR as well as a transcript of the ATC communications. Don't forget the flight path study built on both the FDR as well as the radar data. All of this can be found at the NTSB's site: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

The NTSB may not have had beginning to end responsibility for investigating the crash - that's the FBI's responsibility - but it is absolutely incorrect that the crashes were never investigated by the NTSB. They were. The proof is available at the links.