Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would they have picked a spot so isolated or would they have waited until at least they could come down over a population center? It makes more sense for the passangers to force the plane down over a deserted wood so there would be NO more casualites. When the plane nose dived itself into the ground they were all going to die anyway. Terrorists would still want to take out someone. Passangers would not.
The hijackers did take out a 757 with lots of people on it. It wasn't their original objective, but it was good enough to add to the terror of that day. However, I don't think they were worried about all of t hat when the pax are busting down the cockpit door and trying to overpower your buddies. You realize that you won't make it to Washington, so you take your "cyanide pill" - you push the yoke hard forward and nose dive into the ground. I don't think the passengers wanted it to crash. Planes do not nosedive into the ground on their own. They will tend to level out on their own (depending on how it is configured). This plane seems to have been driven in to the ground by someone at the yoke. If it was shot down, I tend to think it would not hit nose down 90 degrees to the ground. I'm not saying it is impossible, just unlikely. YMMV, of course.
I believe he meant Jam the radar. All commercial planes have radar.
In the beginning 20 seconds he mentions witnessing a mid-air explosion. He couldn't directly make out the military fighter because it was flying towards the sun.
Or from an EMP.
Why would anyone want to jam an airline radar? What good would that do? Airliners don't carry missiles.
You think there is enough energy in either aircraft to produce an EMT large enough to disturb ground power distribution systems?
Ah yes, but was there a Book Depository there? I'm sure that's where the shot came from - oh wait, wrong conspirecy.
Lets not forget the other "crazy" theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives.. never mind the large aircraft that impacted the buildings. Oh and also that the Pentagon was hit by a missle too... Yeah right.
I am the Walrus - coo coo cachoo..
Oh yea, and Iraq had nuclear weapons...oh wait, no they didn't.
It is so easy for people to bury their head in the sand and pretend that everything is alright.
Funny you mention the Book Depository. Deceased Comedian Bill Hicks used to do a nice little segment about that:
I reside in the USA and may form any opinion I want
I don't buy into the air craft being shot down & then covered up and until someone can offer solid evidence to this I will stand by my fuzzy wuzzy opinion....
OK, let's suppose the attack jet didn't jam the airliner. What sort of evasive maneuvers do you think an airliner could perform in response to an attacking jet fighter equipped with IR and active RF air to air missiles?
Most of the EMP discussion revolved around the secondary effects of a nuclear explosion. Do you really think that EMP is a player in this discussion?
Additionally, they have interviewed the pilot who was the closest to the plane and revealed that the plane was only armed with limited machine gun ammo...
Keep in mind those planes are armed with a 20mm Vulcan rotary cannon, not machine guns. The rounds shipped are armor-piercing incendiary and high explosive incendiary and it wouldn't take very many to drop a soft target such as a commercial airliner.
The problem with this "theory" is that why wouldn't the government own up to it. There have been mutliple statements made by people from Bush and Cheney to Rice and Rumsfeld that the order had been given and confirmed that if the plane continued to fail to repsond they would have ordered it shot down.
Additionally, they have interviewed the pilot who was the closest to the plane and revealed that the plane was only armed with limited machine gun ammo and no missiles. He would have had to ram the jet to bring it down and has stated that he was prepared to do so.
Since the government and people in charge on that day freely admit they would have ordered the plane brought down and the pilot admits he would have done it if ordered, why cover up what actually happened? This theory is predicated on the government wanting to hide the fact that they shot down a civilian airliner, however, they openly admit they would have if they had to. What's the point of a cover up?
I agree. It's not a secret that the OK to shoot down the plane was given, so what would be the point of saying, "oh, we didn't shoot it down", and then somehow paying off people like Jeremy Glick's wife and father-in-law to participate in interviews about how they were on the phone with him when the plane went down, etc? Or even the ridiculous notion that someone who just lost someone they loved so much would agree to do that in the first place to protect government officials? This just doesn't make any sense.
On 9/11 there was also a false report of a passenger plane coming in from the Atlantic, and a jet was sent up to intercept it. There was no time to arm the jet, so the pilot was going to ram it with his own plane, in effect sacrificing his life. If it is no secret that the US was willing to do that, why would they make the United 93 story a secret? Makes no sense.
I never said there was evidence of a coverup or a shoot-down. However, the mayor of Shanksville testified that a nearby resident, who was a combat veteran in Vietnam, told him that he heard the unmistakable sound of a missile. Not evidence, but at least as good as Lisa Jefferson's statement.
Here are two things that do know with fair certainty. 1) A shoot-down order was on the table at high levels of command, and 2) the plane went down. Given those two facts, the hypothesis that it was NOT shot down might require a higher standard of proof, and there is none.
Here's something to think about. If the passengers had brought it down, it would have been at a random location depending only on opportuinty, not by design. But Shanksville is exactly the most sparsely-inhabited place on its projected flight path where the air force would have chosen to bring it down. http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...sity_small.gif
Jtur:
While I agree with you that the possibility of Flight 93 being shot down should not be summarily dismissed, I do find fault with one premise of your agrument:
"Given those two facts, the hypothesis that it was NOT shot down might require a higher standard of proof, and there is none."
As someone who disputes a generally accepted version of events you bear the burden of proof. Burden of proof is a cornerstone to any objective argument, and in this case it falls on your shoulders.
While I agree with you that the possibility of Flight 93 being shot down should not be summarily dismissed, I do find fault with one premise of your agrument:
"Given those two facts, the hypothesis that it was NOT shot down might require a higher standard of proof, and there is none."
As someone who disputes a generally accepted version of events you bear the burden of proof. Burden of proof is a cornerstone to any objective argument, and in this case it falls on your shoulders.
"Generally accepted" is a weighted evaluation. Some generally accepted things require different standards of proof than others.
Disturbing your hypothesis is the fact that official proclamation almost invariably constitutes generally accepted, at least in the USA. This makes it childishly easy for the government to misrepresent facts and impose a very high burden of proof on anyone who would object. Look what it took to prove that the little empty vials that Colin Powell picked up at the UN dispensary and showed to the General Assembly were not, after all, absolute evidence that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of using huge stockpiles of biological weapons to immediately destroy the western world. Merely because what he said was "generally accepted", proof that he was wrong cost a trillion dollars and rising, and Powell possessed absolutely no proof whatsoever, nor even any plausible evidence.
As a classic example, there is the oft-repeated line in news broadcasts that something "could not be independently verified". In other words, nothing is "generally accepted" as authentic until the US State Department issues a news release verifying it. Then, the burden of proof is construed to lie on the shoulders of whomever made the original assertion, which is presumed to be a lie unless the State Department (which lied about the vials while Saddam was telling the truth) confirms it.
Last edited by jtur88; 12-29-2010 at 04:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
