Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence flight 93 was shot down

Russell Pickering said:
What it may prove is that they will concoct a massive cover up story and claim it over and over, make films and documentaries about it, create a false story and stick to it while using it for political gain and war support.
Click to expand...

Why concoct a massive cover-up story about this when they already have to worry about covering up the whole 9/11 conspiracy?

Why did they shoot down flight 93? Russell, please answer.

What it would prove is that they were willing to go to great lengths to hide one aspect of 9/11 begging the question what other lengths have they gone to to hide much more easily obscured facts.
Click to expand...

?
 
OP

If you've got it, post it here. I reiterate OBJECTIVE evidence only. I am not interested in motive, whether it was ordered, etc. I am only interested in verfiable, objective evidence that supports the assertion that Flight 93 was shot down. I await the evidence.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Trifikas said:
Is this in response to my post? 'cause if the engines are still ticking at altitude above ground = 0, then that's pretty much proof-positive it was not shot down...

Trifikas
Click to expand...

It's not quite that easy, though you are on the right track. If it were a RADAR shot, then one would not expect it to hose the engines immediately. You would look for signs such as depressurization or sudden loss of co-located systems such as hydraulic and electrical.

Even an IR shot would not necessarily mean flying up the pipe as many (if not most) shacks (direct hit) are detonated by proximity fuse. I would expect an IR shot to be preferential to the engine exhaust in a 757, though.

At least one member of the NEADS battle staff was recorded as postulating the tactic of using a "nine to the face" to shoot down what I think was UA93 - meaning an AIM-9 Sidewinder IR AAM shot from a heads-on aspect.
 
Hey guys

My friend is still undecided whether flight 93 had crashed or was shot down. So I am wondering which of the three "Flight 93" reenactment films are most convincing. It would be helpful if you have seen them all. I could tell by looking at the trailer that "Flight 93 part III" looks most promising, afterall it was released in theaters, you know...
 
geggy said:
Hey guys

My friend is still undecided whether flight 93 had crashed or was shot down. So I am wondering which of the three "Flight 93" reenactment films are most convincing. It would be helpful if you have seen them all. I could tell by looking at the trailer that "Flight 93 part III" looks most promising, afterall it was released in theaters, you know...
Click to expand...
This is your verifiable, objective evidence that flight 93 was shot down?

You're only 8 posts away from being a shoe-in for the Hall, geggy! I hope you're working on your acceptance speech!
 
Guys;

It is impossible to convince people like Jessica, and even Russ, because they dismiss all evidence that supports the official story, as concocted, fabricated.

For instance, in a court of law, the Cockpit Voice Recorder, which can pick up muffled yells from outside the cockpit by the way, had its contents played. These contents verify that there were hijackers, they spoke arabic, and they drove the plane into the ground while being assaulted by the passengers from the flight. This data, was accepted in a court, by the judge, the defence, and the procecution.

Yet, this evidence, by the CTers, is simply blown off as forgery, fakery, etc...

Don't waste your breath if you think you will convince them, just present the evidence, and let the fence sitters make up their own minds.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
Guys;

It is impossible to convince people like Jessica, and even Russ, because they dismiss all evidence that supports the official story, as concocted, fabricated.

For instance, in a court of law, the Cockpit Voice Recorder, which can pick up muffled yells from outside the cockpit by the way, had its contents played. These contents verify that there were hijackers, they spoke arabic, and they drove the plane into the ground while being assaulted by the passengers from the flight. This data, was accepted in a court, by the judge, the defence, and the procecution.

Yet, this evidence, by the CTers, is simply blown off as forgery, fakery, etc...

Don't waste your breath if you think you will convince them, just present the evidence, and let the fence sitters make up their own minds.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

TAM
Click to expand...

A bit like my Fox video of the eyewitness was immediately claimed to be fake by you lot.

Ditto.
 
Jessica, your little snipet of a video isn't proof of anything.

It's a crappy compressed video on the internet about a guy on the street being interviewed. The picture is so bad that we can't even see his face properly, not to mention his lips. It's out of sync with the audio and we can't tell for sure that he's actually the one we hear talking.

You claimed he was acting, but never showed any proof to back this claim.

Wow, great evidence...:rolleyes:
 
FDR data from UA93 indicates the aircraft was operating normally at the time of impact with the ground.

CVR indicates some form of fight in the cockpit, with someone trying to get inside and hijackers trying to prevent them.

NEADS weapons controllers explicitly told they did not have shoot-down permission 7 minutes AFTER UA93 crashed:

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: **** the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.
Click to expand...

Only other aircraft in the air were unarmed fighters from Andrews AFB. They had permission to use force from the Secret Service, however because they were not armed they determined their best bet was to ram their fighters into the wing root of UA93 in the hope of ripping a wing off.

The UA93 FDR clearly indicates such a method of engagement had not occured.

Therefore, evidence indicates UA93 was not intercepted, but crashed into a field whilst passengers were attempting to storm the cockpit.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom