28th Dec 2004, 07:47
View Full Version : Rumsfield slips says Sept 11 flight shot down
28th Dec 2004, 07:47
28th Dec 2004, 10:48
Just a few words on the subject of Flight 93.
In Jan of 2004, I visited the crash site in PA. A cold damp day and I was the only visitor at the time. I was approached by a man who seemed pleased to talk as I explained that as an aviation person I just wanted to be there and read the messages.
He told me he had lived in a house about half a mile from the impact site where he had lived all his life. (Skyline Road) .... but a dirt track. He'd be around fifty. He told me that on the day, he was outside the house and first observed the Boeing low above the trees on the horizon. I estimate perhaps one mile away. He said it was banked. (I gestured some likely bank angles) ..... with smoke coming from what he thought was an engine but certainly from the aircraft.
It descended towards the ground and exploded on impact.
He then said that within seconds a fighter type Jet appeared. It completed one orbit of the crash site and flew off. I tried different types with him. F18 etc, but he couldn't be positive on any of them.
Apparently after the crash, various vehicles with government agents appeared "within minutes" He was extensively interrogated.
Now it just seems to me as an ex RAF man, that had I been ordered to bring down an airliner, (I wouldn't) ..... I would have to follow the standard procedure of following it down to the ground and impact to ensure 'the kill.'
Nothing more to add, but they are the facts.
28th Dec 2004, 11:05
There have been questions about the fate of flight 93 for quite a while- for some interesting stuff:
Click here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html)
There is a problem with individual eyewitness reports- I am told that the police do not like to rely on witnesses, to RTAs for example, as their memories of events leading to a traumatic incident (such as a crash) can be affected by the event itself- in effect memory can be altered by what a witness thinks should have happened in the few moments before the event.
There is not dishonesty - it's just the way our brains work.
However, this idea does not account for the reports of debris spread over a large area, or indeed the fact that several witnesses stories tie-in with each other.
28th Dec 2004, 15:41
I have always been curious about the lack of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon site...no wings, tail, nothing.
28th Dec 2004, 16:02
I have always been curious about the lack of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon site...no wings, tail, nothing.
You have been reading too many conspiracy sites. There was plenty of confirmed B757 RR powered aircraft wreckage at the site.
Hopefully this forum won't dilute itself with endless discussions of conspiracy cover-ups by non-proffesionals
28th Dec 2004, 16:04
If I remember correctly the families of these victims on board was allowed to hear the CVR.
Would have to be a big coverup for this to happen.
They said the same about TWA 800.
Just a play on words or mistakes said under pressure.
Someone would have spilled the beans by now.
If it was shot down no one would have argued about it, so no need to lie.
The nation was being attacked and this aircraft was indeed a prime suspect.
Its apparent the pax were trying to do something about it.
Most of us would like to remember it this way, the other explanation just does not fit.
28th Dec 2004, 16:15
Its flight 93 that is being referred to here, nothing else. There is always somone trying to broaden the discussion therby allowing it to dissolve into a free for all.
Is it or is it not true, that debris from this flight was found 8 miles from the crash site and that very large engine sections were found more than a mile away. If so, then why.
Lets keep it simple.
28th Dec 2004, 16:25
Its seems a slip up by Rumblefeld, though IMO not exactly a "Freudian" one. Taken in the context of the transcript, he's implying UA93 was downed by bad guys (the ones who attacked NY, the Pentagon, etc.). As one of the comments below the story speculates, perhaps he was in one of his mumbly moments, and "brought down" either came out (was heard as) "shot down."
I have no doubt Feds of all bent were on the scene ASAP, surely to be expected given the circumstances. Given that fighters supposedly had been scrambled to intercept, neither is there any great surprise in a flyover later. Exact timing of either could be prone to distortion in the perception of witnesses.
28th Dec 2004, 16:33
Did this information about engine parts found miles away from the crash site come from the NTSB report, or a news agency trying to stir the pot to make headlines?
911 changed it for us all in many ways, our industry is just now starting in some cases to return, some cases worse.
Perhaps one day we will all be able to enjoy things as we once took for granted.
Un- documented conspiracy news wont help.
28th Dec 2004, 16:57
Spot on Earl.
Anybody have any accurate info on that?
28th Dec 2004, 17:57
The engine that was recovered from UA93 was measured at less than 1800ft from the main impact site. Recovery was carried out by the FBI using a local contractors equipment.
28th Dec 2004, 18:07
This is about the most level headed info that I can find. Will the NTSB report be available anywhere.
28th Dec 2004, 18:11
NTSB website sez this:
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."
28th Dec 2004, 18:14
Exactly what I found. No wonder there are some crazy theories flying around. Freedom of information my arse.
Where did you get your information manintheback.
28th Dec 2004, 19:36
Fighters were indeed enroute to intercept.
Not a stretch to imagine that they spotted the smoke from the impact, came over and orbitted the scene once, then hopped back up to altitude to look for other potential hijacked aircraft.
What most forget about that bloody morning is that we had no idea when it was going to end, or how many aircraft were involved. The few fighter types airborne must have been dying to spot any other aircraft.
My uncle was a United 767 captain then. He heard all the inside scoop. A shoot down didn't happen.
28th Dec 2004, 19:53
Ignoring all of the anecdotal stuff, is it safe to say that there is no hard information, either confirming or denying the existence of debris several miles from the crash site, including the precise location of the major engine component.
28th Dec 2004, 22:38
An article on Flight 93 by John Carlin, reporting from Shanksville, appeared in The Independent on 13 August 2002, which has been since widely copied on the net, though mostly on conspiracy websites. Excerpts from the article:
The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash.
A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long.
Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.
The paper debris eight miles away, the FBI says, was wafted away by a 10mph wind; the jet-engine part flew 2,000 yards on account of the savage force of the plane's impact with the ground.
The FBI conclusion: "Nothing was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact." Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth.
28th Dec 2004, 23:14
I am told that the police do not like to rely on witnesses
Are you sure? The cops LOVE it when witnesses suit their purposes- that is, support their case against the accused. In this case I suggest the authorities don't want to hear from witnesses who might upset the official view of what really happened that day.
29th Dec 2004, 00:05
During accident investigation training by the NTSB we were shown a film of an in-flight breakup at an airshow, followed by impact. Note that, unlike the actual witnesses, we knew in advance that we were going to see a crash. After running the film once we were invited to state what we had seen. Various versions of the accident were given and a few requests to see it again were refused "No, you only get one chance in the real world" A general discussion ended up with twenty four future investigators divided neatly into three different camps. After the film was re-run several times we worked out what happened and found that not one of the 24 versions of the event provided by aviation professionals was accurate. That rammed the message home very effectively - you can't trust even expert eye-witness accounts to be accurate; you can only get a general overview. Its the actual wreckage and the marks on the ground that reveal the truth. Pieces of an aeroplane hitting the ground at normal flying speed can travel a very long way.
29th Dec 2004, 03:20
Surely it is possible that parts of the aircraft broke away during the prolonged high speed dive. Maybe the fuselage ruptured spilling mail, or an engine broke off on the way down.
This would account for wreckage being so far from the crash site.
I remember experts being surprised that the second jet to hit the Trade Centre didn't break up before impact as it was being flown so fast, and that was only diving from a few thousand feet not cruising level.
29th Dec 2004, 06:47
And if the UA a/c was shot down, so what? That's what would happen today, like it or not? Get real about this, folks.
29th Dec 2004, 09:03
You hit the nail on thr head Mr Hud.
So what if the aircraft was shot down. It was over open country heading for heavily populated areas. The only logical course of action most would argue
The real crime is the lies and deciet that follow such an action.
The United States is supposed to be a democracy.
There are many unanswered questions surrounding 11/9 absolutely guaranteed to spawn conspiracy theories.
tall and tasty
29th Dec 2004, 09:29
Do you know the thing that hurts the most in all these is the fact that the relatives involved will always wonder with all the cover ups.
I have a close friend privy to info years ago about a major incident that was protected and could say nothing until the 10 year curfew had been lifted on the report. If the truth had been told at the time it would have stopped all the theories we thrive on as a species. The truth does hurt but covering it up hurts even more especially to those involved and waiting for the results of bureaucratic reports whether the end up with the truth or not.
But then that does not get people into power and keep the media hype going!
29th Dec 2004, 11:19
I was reading this thread through to see just how long it would be before someone hit the nail on the head. For the record it was 21 posts. RoyHudd is right, It really matters very little if it was shot down, the fact is, the other 3 planes had already demonstrated the intent of the hijack gang and to down it if possible, would be the only logical course of action. It does however matter to the relatives who do deserve the right to know what happened to their loved ones.
The thing that I find a little baffling though is that if the plane was brought down, why an administration would attempt to conceal the truth. Under normal circumstances, it would have been an incredibly unpopular thing to do, but under the circumstances around 911, it is the only course of action that could have been taken and a little honesty would have been a breath of fresh air.
29th Dec 2004, 12:48
I'd have no problem with the shooting down of flight 93, but if this is true I would have a problem with the lies from the US government about it. Perhaps the politicians view it as too risky politically to tell the truth to the families that an American jet killed their relatives.
Most of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are untrue, this may be too. It's admitted as far as I know that the jets had orders to shoot down further threats, the jet described in the eyewitness account may have arrived after the aircraft crashed as a result of the actions of the passengers.
The arrival on the scene of Federal agents and the thorough questioning would be normal procedure regardless of whether 93 was shot down or crashed by the passengers.
29th Dec 2004, 15:43
I'd have no problem with the shooting down of flight 93, but if this is true I would have a problem with the lies from the US government about it
aaaah....maybe it wasn't hijacked at all.....hence....:E
Would hate having a relative involved in this mess :(
29th Dec 2004, 17:26
The scrambled Air National Guard jets at the time were unarmed. End of UA 93 shoot-down conspiracy theory.
29th Dec 2004, 17:32
End of UA 93 shoot-down conspiracy theory.
T'would be nice, but I doubt it.
29th Dec 2004, 17:45
Flight 93 was shot down by Military aircraft. This would not go good with the public so they instead made the passengers hero's by saying they tried to crash the plane to save other lives.
If you were President this is prolly what you would do too, right?
Oh yea, there was a 5.5 mile stretch of debris of flight 93. You make your choice on what happened.
29th Dec 2004, 18:22
The scrambled Air National Guard jets at the time were unarmed. End of UA 93 shoot-down conspiracy theory
Aye Right !!!
methinks ye protest too much.
:uhoh: :suspect: :uhoh:
Norman Stanley Fletcher
29th Dec 2004, 21:16
What I cannot get my head round is why they would hide it if they had shot it down - it would have been entirely reasonable given the circumstances and there would have been very few dissenting voices in the States. The other important thing to remember here is that had it been shot down then someone did it - and you simply could not keep this quiet. There are just too many people to keep slient - the pilot who did it, his wingman, a radar unit who guided him on, a high ranking general who authorised it, his staff who witnessed it, a squadron commander, an excecutive officer, maintainance personnel who loaded the missile and then saw the aircraft return with one fired, bomb dump personnel who know a missile is missing, all their families who hear some little sniff of it, etc, etc, etc. If there was the slightest hint of truth about this there would be a trail - it just is not there. The simple fact is that there would be nothing to hide if they had done it and there is not a scrap of credible evidence to indicate it happened. Remember, even the Russian pilot who shot down the Korean 747 years ago eventually appeared on TV. By now someone, somewhere involved in what happened would have come forward and they are just not there.
This is in the same category as the MI5 killing Princess Diana or the CIA killing Kennedy - there just is not the evidence to support the conspiracy theorists in these cases and there would definitely be something to hide there. In this case there is nothing to hide and still there is not any real evidence. I am open to any possibility but I am sorry guys - it just did not happen.
29th Dec 2004, 22:05
The evidence that the world has is a 8 mile stretch of debris. Whatever happened it happened several thousand feet above the earth.
29th Dec 2004, 23:44
Why scramble a fighter at all if it isn't armed?:confused:
The "Let's roll" comment came from a cellphone call from a passenger to his family, so scratch that one from the list of conspiracy ingredients.
Maybe it was shot down by a military aircraft of non-fighter configuration (Lear-type perhaps?), maybe from the ground, or maybe the hijackers blew it up.
Whatever did happen, the one thing it wasn't, was a regular crash.
30th Dec 2004, 00:13
> Why scramble a fighter at all if it isn't
According to the review of 9/11 events published in AW&ST in mid-2003 (which I unfortunately did not keep), the first two ANG F-16s to take off to cover Washington DC had only 200 rounds of solid 20mm on board one of the two planes. The senior pilot decided that they couldn't wait 15 minutes for live missiles to be loaded and his wingman agreed. The reported conversation between the two is bone-chilling: "You understand what this means". "Yes sir".
30th Dec 2004, 06:01
Like Goeth, I believe that the crux of the matter lies in the existence or non existence of the debris field.
There must be hard evidence somewhere relating to this, but all we get are eyewitness reports which continue to be discounted, irrespective of their source.
It would be relatively simple to put this one to bed if the facts were available.
30th Dec 2004, 08:03
I have no opinion on this subject, I choose not to when not enough is known to form one of reasonable firmness as it tends to preclude further objective consideration. So just a couple of observations really.
A point about 'facts'. From one poster within 5 hours.
....Oh yea, there was a 5.5 mile stretch of debris of flight 93. You make your choice on what happened.The evidence that the world has is a 8 mile stretch of debris.
It so often seems to be the way with 'facts', no wonder I'm wary of them.
And regarding why the aircraft possibly having been shot down might be covered up.
What I cannot get my head round is why they would hide it if they had shot it down - it would have been entirely reasonable given the circumstances and there would have been very few dissenting voices in the States. Not directed specifically at you Norman Stanley Fletcher it was just the nearest similar quote to hand. On a purely human level I feel that such comments are entirely incorrect.
Whilst it is nice to think we could all be heroic enough to accept that a family member or loved one lost their life for the greater good of many more on the ground I'm not so sure it would be easy to be so dispassionate (and I mean above and beyond the obvious grief of such a loss) about it were we actually in those shoes.
I can't begin to imagine the emotional turmoil that might be caused by knowing such a thing, it presents so many additional and unanswerable 'what ifs' to all those already present for those left to ask the questions.
I know I'd want to know, I know I'd be overcome with a compulsion to know that it absolutely and without question was the only possible course of action and even then how can someone in that position ever be convinced of such a thing in any way that is remotely acceptable when the whole situation is unacceptable on an emotional level.
The fate of the aircraft lying with those aboard alone throws up enough questions for those left to grieve, to then add the possibility that another external and entirely deliberate influence caused the outcome may, I feel, be unmanageable on a psychological level for those people.
I'm not sure if even in the presence of all the available facts indicating that the aircraft was doomed anyway I could ever accept the fact that any possibility, however remote, of safe return of a loved one on board was denied in that way.
The affected people may be small in number compared to those wanting to know through idle curiosity but they are the only ones who really matter, perhaps in some strange way their best interests are in fact being protected.
30th Dec 2004, 14:35
Geezus Grandpa. Why must you ALWAYS try and snake it back towards your little Dubya bashing? Interesting thread till you got here. Take it somewhere else. :rolleyes: :yuk:
30th Dec 2004, 15:18
Geezus Grandpa. Why must you ALWAYS try and snake it back towards your little Dubya bashing? Interesting thread till you got here. Take it somewhere else.
I'm with you on that one Jerrico. If a dubya bash finds its way into every thread, then I would wager on a limited life expectancy for Jetblast
30th Dec 2004, 15:59
Several years after the event, one is also somewhat disturbed by the continuing secrecy surrounding it. After all, when the Iranian airliner was shot down by a US cruiser, it was quite rapidly admitted.
So if one allowed one's imagination to run wild and presume the worst, one could come up with the following scenario:
Last (public) recorded communication: Todd Beamer "Let's roll!"
Todd and his band manage to overpower the hijackers. None of them are pilots but Todd slips into the LH seat and tries to contact someone on the radio. By this time the (probably CIA) white executive-fighter is in visual contact with the Boeing...
But noone believes that Todd is in really in control! Just think of all the A-rabs educated in US and speak English with one of the very wide accents Americans have, so...
To cut a long story short, Flight 93 was shot down. The secrecy is all about how you can be a good guy and still get killed by other good guys. Because of the unknown. Because some risks cannot be taken. And if all the other good guys on the planet thought their efforts would always be in vain, they may no longer demonstrate they were good guys. Whether or not it mattered in the first place...
30th Dec 2004, 16:14
Perhaps a US contributor can clear this up.
As I understand it, if UA 093 was shot down under the orders of the White House it would prove to be an enormous constitutional and legal problem as the President nor any of his deputies had the authority to issue such a command. Am I correct in thinking that under the constitution the President cannot use military force against US citizens?
If it was shot down that would be good enough reason to keep quiet I should think.
30th Dec 2004, 16:18
Of course 93 was shot down, as was 77. The irony though is these 2 planes were never hijacked in the first place.
Operation 9-11 involved the hijacking of 2 planes, 11 and 175 and crashing them into the WTC -- that's it.
Shooting them down appears to have been a government screw-up.
30th Dec 2004, 16:27
Seriously, we're never, ever really going to know what happened on that stupid day. But we all know how it has changed the way we look at aviation.
30th Dec 2004, 16:34
But we all know how it has changed the way we look at aviation... I like that.
More night flights...lower wages...lower glamour...lower pensions...working over the New Year free (if you're with US Airways)...?! :E
30th Dec 2004, 16:37
Are any of the dead going to come back to life as a result of all this theorising?
For pity's sake - let it lie.
30th Dec 2004, 16:50
Airship, not to mention added sections to operations manuals, new procedures, simulations for various exercises, fighter intercepts and escorts all over the world. And as pathetic as it may sound, how many controllers have sat there in vairous parts of the world and (for whatever reason) have had a flight not respond to a call for an extended period of time, and in the back of his or her mind though for even a second "Oh crap, here we go again..............."
30th Dec 2004, 16:58
But Jerricho, you're paid fer it... ;)
30th Dec 2004, 17:00
True. But ask any ATCO and they ALL will tell you we're underpaid and overworked ;)
30th Dec 2004, 17:19
And over-sexed...! Thank goodness you're not over here as well?! :)
30th Dec 2004, 17:21
"ATC - We get them down safely"
Norman Stanley Fletcher
31st Dec 2004, 13:43
SyllogismCheck - If I understood your views correctly you seem to be saying that the pilots tasked with shooting down the aircraft would have been emotionally overwhelmed by the responsibility. I suspect you may not have been in the military, but as ex-military aircrew I can tell you that you just do it - training kicks in. That is not to take some moral questioning out of the loop but the moral decision was made when you took the job and each day when you go to work - not when the target is in the Head-up Display!
You simply cannot have a fighter pilot worthy of the name who will not shoot down an aircraft if he is told to do so, and such people should be weeded out at the earliest opportunity, if they exist. That does not mean to say that those who issue such orders are above subsequent investigation and possible punishment if wrongdoing took place, but the bottom line is that the chain of command must work. The generals who take these decisions must have the gumption to do so and put their emotions aside. It would, in my judgement, have been exactly the right decision to shoot down the aircraft and if the situation arose again it would still be the right decision. I say that now as an airline captain who could theoretically be one day on the wrong end of such a decision. In the current world of lunatic Islamic terrorism you cannot accept for one second a situation where these evil nutters are at the controls of a commerical airliner - given that in addition to whatever other evils they will do, they will kill everyone on board the aircraft anyway. Once you have lost the flightdeck you have to assume that everyone on board is dead anyway - however hideous emotionally the acceptance of such a thing is.
Right now in every western country there are fighter pilots sat next to live-armed aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert 24/7. There needs to be not one shred of doubt in anyone's mind - either of the general in charge or the pilot himself that he is able and willing to carry out the order to shoot down a commercial airliner should the need arise. That need will have been determined way up the chain and not by the pilot. I personally have no doubt that if the worst should ever happen again, and I pray it never does, that any western fighter pilot scrambled will if necessary shoot down a commercial airliner. It is absolutely vital that everyone knows, and that includes any would-be terrorist, that we have the means and resolve to do whatever it takes to protect our citizens.
All that having been said, I am still amazed at the number of apparently educated people appearing on here who genuinely believe that this and indeed possibly one other aircraft was shot down on September 11. As I have suggested earlier there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the conspiracy theory.
1st Jan 2005, 00:39
.....Remember the KAL flight shot down by Russian fighter.
(sorry! for those who believe Russians are from a different kind of human beings)
1st Jan 2005, 06:12
Norman Stanley Fletcher,
Apologies, reading my post now I see that I didn't make myself clear at the outset.
My comments were related soley to the possible emotions of those who lost people aboard the aircraft and how they may be affected (for the worse, if thats at all possible) by knowing that it was shot down.
If you read again with this in mind I think it may take on a different meaning, particularly perhaps the last paragraph.
(Although reading that now it appears that I'm suggesting that it was in fact shot down, again bad wording, I have no opinion. Everything I wrote was from a hypothetical point of view)
1st Jan 2005, 09:35
It has been explored in my country during Algeria's war, in a film called "Les Dimanches de Ville d'Avray" telling the nightmares endured by a French pilot after dropping Napalm on a "rebel" Algerian village.
He was waking, night after night, with the image of a young girl running for life from the fire HE dropped on her house.
It came with the unending guiltyness feeling and the knowledge he could never repair and suppress his misdeed and his personnal responsability.
Not much popularised attitude, but I guess you can find it in other countries and wars.................
1st Jan 2005, 20:40
but perhaps later basic humanity can cause you problems.
I knew one guy who came across as both totally sane and a stone killer. He was laughing as he told me that if it had been up to him there wouldn't be a current problem with Algerians in France because he would have killed them all back when if he had the chance. I could only shrug.
But the rest of the 'war heroes' I have met all seemed to be a half-ball out of level. Perhaps that is not a representative sample, and they are just helicopter jocks and not jet pilots but still....
I just have to think there is something in the killing profession that is just inherently unhealthy, somehow. And not just for the people on the wrong end of the gun. Just look at the rhetorical knots people here get tied into. Sheesh!
Anyway, Happy New Year!
2nd Jan 2005, 00:10
Huck Quote: "My uncle was a United 767 captain then. He heard all the inside scoop. A shoot down didn't happen."
Hi Guys - interesting questions! Thanks for that article El Grifo. It raised some issues that I'd never heard of before like ...
"Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine."
"Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene."
"Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday."
The official crash time is listed as ..."It crashed southeast of Pittsburgh around 10:20 a.m. ET" http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/victims/Default.asp?p=7#list
The article from Post-Gazette continues on to say ...
In response to a question on recurring rumors that the plane might have been shot down, Special Agent Bill Crowley (FBI Pittsburg office) said that ...
"at this stage of the investigation, no possibility was being ruled out. He stressed, however, that no evidence had surfaced to support that theory."
The above deduction from Special Agent Crowley seems opposed to the physics of plane crashes.
How can a plane which explodes on contact with the ground begin to explode six miles (at least) before it comes into contact with the ground?
I always understood that there was a heroic struggle on board and the 'terrorists' dove the plane straight down into the ground from a high altitude. The terrorists could not have gotten explosives aboard, so how did the plane begin to self destruct 6 miles before crashing into the ground?
Huck, maybe you could post some of the 'inside evidence' your uncle had privvy to?
Here's some other info on Flight 93...
Cheers & Happy New Year
2nd Jan 2005, 00:49
My money is on the aircraft coming apart in mid-air because it was being flown outside its performance envelope.
2nd Jan 2005, 01:22
Maybe so andrewc, however the balance of probabilities seems to point the finger at a 'shoot-down' of one sort or another. Why would they stay mum about it; LITIGATION. In the land of the free and the home of the brave the Government would still have its butt sued off, let alone the bad press, legalities of the action etc. That said, what else were they to do folks? Remember this happened when we all knew what the bastards intended to do with these aircraft. My sincere sypathies to all the relatives of those involved. Leave Granpa alone, he is correct, there are many documented mental problems in ex-military types who have carried out their orders against 'the enemy' and later found them to be harmless women and children - suicides too. And Dubya bashing? Why the hell not the man is a clot.
2nd Jan 2005, 01:46
It is apparent that no one posting here was an eye witness to the event in question.
It is also apparent that those who follow the shootdown theory are getting their information from the newspapers, TV, etc.
These are the same sources that have such a good track record in reporting incidents/accidents to aircraft.... right ? :hmm:
2nd Jan 2005, 02:22
For an example of speculation and theories turning out to be wrong, why not read the thread on the MK Airlines crash in the Rumours and News Forum from beginning to end.
All kinds of ideas from cargo shifting/being mis weighed, taking off from the wrong intersection, to explosions in the tail.
Turns out the wrong power setting was used for take off, still trying to work out why.
3rd Jan 2005, 12:02
I wonder how many people here read the Commission Report on 9/11.
Page 30 says that the North East Air Defense System first received a call about UA93 from the military liaison at the Cleveland Center (FAA) at 10:07. That's four minutes after the crash (at 10:03:11). Unaware that the aircraft was already down, Cleveland Center passed to NEADS the last known position (lat/long). NEADS was never able to locate UA93 since it was already on the ground.
At the same time, the NEADS mission crew commander was dealing with the fighters from Langley, sorting out what the orders were regarding potential targets. Shortly after 10:10, and having no knowledge either that UA93 had been heading towards Washington or that it had crashed, he explicitly instructed the pilots: "negative-negative clearance to shoot aircraft over the nation's capital".
Page 43 says NORAD had no information either until at least 10:07. The NMCC learned of UA93's hijacking at about 10:03 by the White House, informed by the Secret Service's contacts with the FAA.
Between 10:14 and 10:19, a lieutenant colonel at the White House repeatedly relayed to the NMCC that Cheney had confirmed fighters were cleared to engage inbound aircraft if they could verify that it was hijacked. The shootdown order was not broadcast within NORAD before 10:31.
The NEADS commander didn't pass along the shootdown order from the Vice President to the pilots.
For more, check: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
3rd Jan 2005, 14:04
But Strat, that's what they want you to think.......... :E
3rd Jan 2005, 15:39
Sure ! My sister's nephew's twin brother talked to a guy who got drunk with Elvis two weeks ago, and the King said "The truth is out there !".
He must be 100% right. Since the King knows a lot about records, he must have figured out all by himself in his secret underground anti-nuclear cave somewhere in Minnesota that the tapes taken by the Commission at the FAA, NORAD, NMCC and NEADS have been re-recorded after 9/11.
3rd Jan 2005, 15:42
There ya go Strat. Embrase the conspiracy ;).
3rd Jan 2005, 22:46
Lets chuck this in......
Check out the video.
Regards and impartial but ...........F.