Flight 93 cover up?...is it justified?

[Sizzler]

This was posted on george washington blog today. It was posted "semi-anonymously".

"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day.

This is what he had to say. And apparently (I had not known this previously) he isn't the first to come out "semi-anonymously".

According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-air-force-shot-down-flight-93.html

Here are the options;

1. He is lying.

2. He is telling the truth and his assessment of said events is true.

3. He is telling the truth and his assessment of said events is mistaken.

For the purpose of this thread lets assume 2 is true:)

If this were the case then the military did shoot down flight93. This alone does not prove any CT claim other than the flight 93 claim that it was shot down, rather than crashing due to heroic passengers.

Now the question I am posing is, would the military be justified in "covering up" a shoot down?

One poster at GWB posts;

Most people I know
buy the official story of 9/11, but if pressed about Flight 93, they will say,
sure, maybe the military shot it down. But then they will tell you that that was the right thing to do considering the damage it would have done if it had reached its target. And they will tell you that covering up the shootdown was also the right thing to do, because the country needed to unite for war, and news of the military shooting down civilians would have generated disunity.

Assuming the following passage from "Financing Fascism: The Military-Industrial Complex and the Rise of Neo-Conservatism", by Andrew G. Marshall, is true....

Prominent neo-conservatives have often discussed in their writings, the need for strong leadership. It is also a widely held neo-conservative belief that lying is central to the survival of nations. The belief that the leader must lie is excused by neo-conservatives because they say that since the leader is a public figure and what the leader says is therefore publicly stated, it is necessary to lie in order to protect the people, because the “enemies”, whomever they may be, are watching the leader, too. So, thusly, neoconservatives advocate lying as a form of tricking the enemy. This is termed, “strategic deception”.68
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MarshallMilitaryIndComplexPNAC.pdf

...would the military be justified in a cover up of a shoot down of flight 93?

[twinstead]

If the military shot down 93, in retrospect why would they cover it up?

[Sizzler]

If the military shot down 93, in retrospect why would they cover it up?

One poster at GWB offered this,

And they will tell you that covering up the shootdown was also the right thing to do, because the country needed to unite for war, and news of the military shooting down civilians would have generated disunity.

[Blender Head]

Its "Mike the EMT" all over again.

[Totovader]

If the military shot down 93, in retrospect why would they cover it up?

I'm still waiting for any conspiracst to explain that one to me- or how this ridiculous shoot down makes sense if the towers were taken down with explosives or the planes were faked or there was some kind of a missile at the Pentagon or any other stupid claims.

Shooting down Flight 93 and then covering it up makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's the perfect example of conspiracists going to great lengths just to avoid the evidence: if Flight 93 was an actual plane crash, then it was actually terrorists- and if it was actually terrorists, then the whole stupid fantasy goes out the window.

So... they invent something sinister- whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant.

[Totovader]

One poster at GWB offered this,

That makes no sense. See above.

[stateofgrace]

Now the question I am posing is, would the military be justified in "covering up" a shoot down?

...would the military be justified in a cover up of a shoot down of flight 93?

Why would they cover it up ?

1988: US warship shoots down Iranian airliner
An American naval warship patrolling in the Persian Gulf has shot down an Iranian passenger jet after apparently mistaking it for an F-14 fighter.

All those on board the airliner - almost 300 people - are believed dead. The plane, an Airbus A300, was making a routine flight from Bandar Abbas, in Iran, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

[Sizzler]

I'm still waiting for any conspiracst to explain that one to me- or how this ridiculous shoot down makes sense if the towers were taken down with explosives or the planes were faked or there was some kind of a missile at the Pentagon or any other stupid claims.

Shooting down Flight 93 and then covering it up makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's the perfect example of conspiracists going to great lengths just to avoid the evidence: if Flight 93 was an actual plane crash, then it was actually terrorists- and if it was actually terrorists, then the whole stupid fantasy goes out the window.

So... they invent something sinister- whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant.

Look two posts back:)

[TC329]

If the military shot down 93, in retrospect why would they cover it up?


Because the plane turned around just past Indian Lake and started flying North.

[Jonnyclueless]

is it even possible to hit a plane with a missile an have it remain intact, hitting the ground in 1 piece?

[johnny karate]

You forgot Option 4: The author of the blog made the whole thing up.

[Sizzler]

Why would they cover it up ?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

Thanks for offering the example. I wonder if they could have covered up the shoot down of a foreign plane.

I do question a possible cover up. It would make so much more sense that the plane was shot down. So why cover it up?

Again, one poster at GWB said a military shootdown would cause the American public to be less unified.

[Sizzler]

You forgot Option 4: The author of the blog made the whole thing up.

haha. Ok lets modify option 1-->The article and/or author is a lie.

[twinstead]

Because the plane turned around just past Indian Lake and started flying North.

But there's no reliable evidence for that. Produce some, or my point remains: why cover it up?

[Sizzler]

But there's no reliable evidence for that. Produce some, or my point remains: why cover it up?

An answer is offered in OP.

[johnny karate]

What any CTer first needs to do before we can properly address this question is come up with a narrative. Tells us what they think happened that day, and how a shoot-down of United 93 fits into that chain of events. Then we can assess the "justification" of such an act.

[LastChild]

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911paplanep3.asp

Jet crashes near Somerset; passenger reported hijacking in phone call

Tuesday, September 11, 2001
The Associated Press
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom and delivered a chilling message. "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!"

The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

[A W Smith]

Its "Mike the EMT" all over again.


Exactly... troofer desperation never ceases to amaze me.

[defaultdotxbe]

Again, one poster at GWB said a military shootdown would cause the American public to be less unified.

regardless of what it would do with american unity, what do you suppose it would mean to the idea that 9/11 was planned and executed by the US government?

why send a plane out there, then shoot it down, and then cover it up?

[twinstead]

An answer is offered in OP.

Of course it is. Like I never read the OP. With all due respect, it appears you question every single aspect of the 'official story' no matter how mundane, yet you obliviously hang your hat on anything that appears to contradict it no questions asked.

Listen to defaultdotxpe. Rock on.

[gtc]

I think this is a good question but the way you ask the question means that you will have a lot of debunkers who won't take the question seriously. Simply asking the question about why would they cover it up if they had shot the flight down would be enough without bringing this blog post into it.

That said, I am willing to go along with this discussion but I will note that it is possible that he was correct that one plane came back a missile short without it meaning that flight 93 was shot down (they may have shot but missed, the missile might not have even been loaded etc).

Now, I can't see why they would need or want to cover up the fact that they shot the flight down. It would have sent the message to terrorists that the US is prepared to do anything to stop terrorism, even shooting down their own planes.

The person who shot the plane down would have been a hero. He or she did their job and saved the lives of all the innocent Americans who would have been killed if the plane was allowed to continue to its destination. They would have been even more of a hero because they did their job despite knowing that they would have to shoot down a plane load of civillians. The mix of heroism and tragedy would have been just as great as the 'lets roll' narrative.

Just my opinion.

[LastChild]

Hypothetically speaking of course... but what would this administration have done if the military had shot down a plane in error on 9/11? One where after the fact it couldn’t be determined for sure if it was really hijacked or not?

[twinstead]

Hypothetically speaking of course... but what would this administration have done if the military had shot down a plane in error on 9/11? One where after the fact it couldn’t be determined for sure if it was really hijacked or not?

Good question. How exactly does that tie in with the whole 'inside job' thing?

[A W Smith]

A Childs Garden of failposts

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911paplanep3.asp

Jet crashes near Somerset; passenger reported hijacking in phone call

Tuesday, September 11, 2001
The Associated Press
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom and delivered a chilling message. "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!"

The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Phone_calls
Edward Felt

9:58:00 - 911 call to Westmoreland County dispatcher, from his cell phone. (see cell phones (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Cell_phones) for more about this call)Ed Felt's call has also been subject of debate, with some believing that he mentioned sounds of an explosion and saw white smoke. The "explosion" and "smoke" are myths.
“ Jere Longman reports in a March 2002 New York Times article, "the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, We're going down.[8] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Phone_calls#_note-7)

[LastChild]

Good question. How exactly does that tie in with the whole 'inside job' thing?

What if the catalyst for many conspiracies is the suspicion rose when officials are covering up something other then an inside job? Like criminal negligence and incompetence.

[A W Smith]

What if the catalyst for many conspiracies is the suspicion rose when officials are covering up something other then an inside job? Like criminal negligence and incompetence.

So if their intention was to shoot down flight 93. And they hypothetically succeeded. With no loss of life on the ground. They were incompetant...... How?

[Jonnyclueless]

So now we're playing the game 'let's just think up what our imagination can come up with'. Maybe there was a UFO tailing flight 93 and the jet launched a rocket at the UFO which moved out of the way. Luckily flight 93 saw the rocket and dodged it too. Unfortunately flight 93 was too low to the ground and when they dodged the missile they hit the ground. And the missile was the magical silent aircraft that was seen as well as the UFO.

How's that work guys? I mean since we're just making stuff up now.

[Reheat]

Show the evidence on the FDR and you might be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're spreading falsified hearsay! :mad:

[Pardalis]

It was posted "semi-anonymously".

:rolleyes:



Happy birthday AW! :hbd:

[LastChild]

So now we're playing the game 'let's just think up what our imagination can come up with'. Maybe there was a UFO tailing flight 93 and the jet launched a rocket at the UFO which moved out of the way. Luckily flight 93 saw the rocket and dodged it too. Unfortunately flight 93 was too low to the ground and when they dodged the missile they hit the ground. And the missile was the magical silent aircraft that was seen as well as the UFO.

How's that work guys? I mean since we're just making stuff up now.

I don't think the AP report was just someone’s imagination that the plane was suffering some kind of explosion and damage before it hit the ground.

Now did someone report a UFO?

[Horatius]

Hypothetically speaking of course... but what would this administration have done if the military had shot down a plane in error on 9/11? One where after the fact it couldn’t be determined for sure if it was really hijacked or not?



I'm going to go with, "They would have blown the crap out of Afghanistan for habouring the terrorists who forced them into making such a terrible mistake."

Which is what they would have done in any case, so why bother with the cover-up?

[A W Smith]

:rolleyes:



Happy birthday AW! :hbd:
Thanks Pardalis!

[Sizzler]

I think this is a good question but the way you ask the question means that you will have a lot of debunkers who won't take the question seriously. Simply asking the question about why would they cover it up if they had shot the flight down would be enough without bringing this blog post into it.

point taken;)

That said, I am willing to go along with this discussion but I will note that it is possible that he was correct that one plane came back a missile short without it meaning that flight 93 was shot down (they may have shot but missed, the missile might not have even been loaded etc).

This is option number 3 in OP.

"3. He is telling the truth and his assessment of said events is mistaken."


Now, I can't see why they would need or want to cover up the fact that they shot the flight down. It would have sent the message to terrorists that the US is prepared to do anything to stop terrorism, even shooting down their own planes.

Exactly right.

The person who shot the plane down would have been a hero. He or she did their job and saved the lives of all the innocent Americans who would have been killed if the plane was allowed to continue to its destination. They would have been even more of a hero because they did their job despite knowing that they would have to shoot down a plane load of civillians. The mix of heroism and tragedy would have been just as great as the 'lets roll' narrative.

Well, I don't think it would have been as good.

option 1: Hero passengers sacrifice their own lives and take the plane down

option 2: Hero jet fighter shoots down the plane

Option 1 makes a far better movie:)

[twinstead]

What if the catalyst for many conspiracies is the suspicion rose when officials are covering up something other then an inside job? Like criminal negligence and incompetence.

What? What if you were completely wrong? Aren't questions cool?

[Reheat]

I'm remiss in wishing you a Happy Birthday too, A W.:D

[A W Smith]

I don't think the AP report was just someone’s imagination that the plane was suffering some kind of explosion and damage before it hit the ground.

Now did someone report a UFO?


look at all the news reports citing the call mentioning "explosion" and "smoke" and compare the rush to publication DATE!
Do You "think" they had a transcript of the pnone calls by september 11th/12th 2001?

[A W Smith]

I'm remiss in wishing you a Happy Birthday too, A W.:D
Thank you Reheat!! you would have remissed if you waited another 14 minutes:D

[LastChild]

What? What if you were completely wrong? Aren't questions cool?

Completely wrong about what? This administration would never try to cover anything up? They lie even when they don't need to. I doubt 9/11 could be the one instance where they did tell the truth.

No questions make you feel blissful.

[A W Smith]

option 1: Hero passengers sacrifice their own lives and take the plane down

option 2: Hero jet fighter shoots down the plane

Option 1 makes a far better movie:)

so the government chose to shoot down 93 because....um......They were thinking of making a "better movie"???.. Excuse me for a moment. but are you old enough to remember the "duck and cover' government movie from the fifties? It is hard to believe 'better" is even in their vocabulary.

[A W Smith]

Completely wrong about what?

all 1718 posts to be exact

[LastChild]

so the government chose to shoot down 93 because....um......They were thinking of making a "better movie"???.. Excuse me for a moment. but are you old enough to remember the "duck and cover' government movie from the fifties? It is hard to believe 'better" is even in their vocabulary.

Are you celebrating?

After the fact. What makes a better story?

[Corsair 115]

is it even possible to hit a plane with a missile an have it remain intact, hitting the ground in 1 piece?Yes, depending on the missile and where the aircraft was struck.

A DHL cargo jet was struck by a shoulder-fired SAM over Baghdad in 2003. The missile hit the trailing edge of the port wing, near the tip. It shredded a good portion of the wing, started a fire, and caused the jet to lose all hydraulic power.

The crew was able to land the crippled aircraft. It was the first time in aviation history that a jet was successfully landed without any hydraulics.

[A W Smith]

Are you celebrating?

After the fact. What makes a better story?

The story that you dont have to cover up!!!

Oh my gosh!

The stupid! It Burns!

LC Abuse - please desist.

[twinstead]

Imbecillin. I LIKE it.

[LastChild]

The story that you dont have to cover up!!!

Oh my gosh!

The stupid! It Burns!

LC Edited quoted abuse.

I got the penicillin after discussing Abuse. Please desist.

Now did they use the flight 93 heroes to push their agenda or not?

[A W Smith]

I got the penicillin

Now did they use the flight 93 heroes to push their agenda or not?

affirming the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent)logical fallacy

reported btw

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, depending on the missile and where the aircraft was struck.

A DHL cargo jet was struck by a shoulder-fired SAM over Baghdad in 2003. The missile hit the trailing edge of the port wing, near the tip. It shredded a good portion of the wing, started a fire, and caused the jet to lose all hydraulic power.

The crew was able to land the crippled aircraft. It was the first time in aviation history that a jet was successfully landed without any hydraulics.

Fair enough. Then the UFO's powers can explain the lack of such readings on the FDR. Either way I win with my UFO ace card. I can explain any situation with a UFO.

[BillyRayValentine]

Again, one poster at GWB said a military shootdown would cause the American public to be less unified.

Ridiculous. The reasons the gov't wouldn't want to admit blowing a domestic airliner out of the sky are obvious. The whole idea of admitting that our enemy forced us to kill our own probably wouldn't have been that appealing...

And if that HAD happened, the result would have been to make "us" angrier, i.e. more unified, not less.

Though of course this is all irrelevant since the plane crashed without being impacted by a missile, and not a single shred of legitimate, verifiable proof indicates otherwise.

That poster at GWB us a blithering idiot. Probably another misguided youth.

[tim]

Gentlemen, please calm down. Personal abuse does not further your argument.

[Jonnyclueless]

Gentlemen, please calm down. Personal abuse does not further your argument.


It's the UFOs, they get us all worked up!

[gumboot]

This was posted on george washington blog today. It was posted "semi-anonymously".


"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day.



The bolded parts leapt out at me immediately as false.

If this "ground equipment mechanic" cannot even gets facts as straight forward as this correct, I see not reason to believe his claims, and indeed am skeptical that this person even works at Langley. In other words, it has fake written all over it.

To clarify, the 119th Fighter Wing of the North Dakota Air National Guard had two F-16A Fighting Falcons detached to Langley AFB in the alert role.

On the morning of 9/11 the two rostered pilots - Major Brad Derrig and Major Dean Eckmann were scrambled at 0921 to establish a CAP over Baltimore. In addition Captain Craig Borgstrom was sent into the air in a third unarmed F-16.

These fighters were given call signs Quit 2-5, Quit 2-6 and Quit 2-7, and were airborne at 0930. At 0936 they were directed by NEADS to intercept a low altitude high-speed radar contact over Washington DC which turned out to be AA77. Unfortunately the fighters were too far away. They established a CAP over Washington DC shortly after 10am.

When UA93 crashed at 1003 these three fighters were over Washington DC.

[cyclonic]

When was the shoot down order given?

==0949 AM > The two F-16s scrambled from Langley arrive over Washington, reinforced an hour later by three fighters from Andrews AFB. The planes from Andrews have little or no ammunition, but all three pilots later state that if necessary they were prepared to ram an incoming aircraft. [avw.Jun.03+Sep.09.2002 / cnn.Sep.17.2001]

==0949 AM > With Flight 93 an estimated 26 minutes from Washington, the FAA has still not asked NORAD for military assistance against the approaching plane. At 0949, the following exchange takes place:
FAA Command Center: Uh, do we want to think, uh, about scrambling aircraft?
FAA Headquarters: Oh, God, I don’t know.
FAA Command Center: Uh, that’s a decision somebody’s gonna have to make probably in the next ten minutes.
FAA Headquarters: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.
The FAA never does inform NORAD about Flight 93. [911cm]


==0957 AM > Passengers on Flight 93 attack the hijackers. The hijackers try to knock the attackers off balance by flying erratically, but the passengers keep up a sustained assault on the cockpit. See 1003 AM [911cm]
==1003:11 AM > Flight 93 crashes in rural Pennsylvania, near Shanksville, after witnesses observe it flying erratically at high speed. Evidently, the frantic hijackers deliberately crashed the plane just as the passengers were about to break into the cockpit. Horrified personnel at the United Airlines crisis center "watched it until the end of the radar track ... and then, poof. We didn't have time to cry." News reports of the crash begin circulating about a half hour later. [911cm / wsj.Oct.15.2001]
=Since the fighters patrolling over Washington at this time had no shootdown orders (see 1010-1015), it is likely that Flight 93 would have hit its intended target - probably the Capitol Building - if it hadn't been brought down by the passenger revolt. [911cm]


==1010-1015 AM > During this time frame Cheney orders the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93, unaware that the plane has already crashed. Cheney later claimed that he had gotten Bush's consent for the order about five minutes earlier, but 911 Commission investigators reportedly concluded that the Vice President acted without authorization. Unknown to Cheney, his shootdown order is inoperative since he didn’t send it through the regular chain of command. The order generates a great deal of confusion and is not communicated to the pilots patrolling over New York and Washington until later, if at all. [911cm / nwwk.Feb.27.2006]

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

[Totovader]

Look two posts back:)

I was responding to that post.

You can't mold it into something that makes sense, either?

Well, on to the next conspiracist. A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters...

[jhunter1163]

AW Smith wins today's Golden Guffaw award.

[stateofgrace]

Thanks for offering the example. I wonder if they could have covered up the shoot down of a foreign plane.

I do question a possible cover up. It would make so much more sense that the plane was shot down. So why cover it up?

Again, one poster at GWB said a military shootdown would cause the American public to be less unified.

Ok Lets have a look at what you say. You say it would make sense had flight 93 been shot down so why cover it up? You speculate it would cause less unification. Do you really think so?

Imagine had they shot it down and rather than try to cover it up admitted it, there and then. There would be no need for any massive cover stories, no need for anybody to keep quiet, no need for any form of faking of evidence, black boxes, phone calls, nothing whatsoever. All they had to do from day one was say "Hey yes we shot it down during a national emergency. We had no choice".

Dose that unify the public? Would it galvanise public opinion further? If that was the sole aim of shooting down this flight then yes it could be exploited no end to unite public opinion. The potential to do this from shooting down one of your own aircrafts and admitting it is enormous. It goes right across the board from interviews with weeping pilots who were forced to do so, right up to the people who were forced to order them to do so. Do you honestly think that people would condemn such actions? Turn on the people who were forced to shoot down a civilian aircraft? No they would not; they would rightly condemn the people who put them in this dreadful position and had forced them to do so.Covering up the shooting down of one of your own aircrafts, when you are forced to do, would actually unite people a great deal further than not admitting it.

It makes no sense whatsoever that anybody who was forced into a position where they had to do something that they would, under normal circumstances not do, would not admit it. It makes a lot more sense to just admit it right from day one and play the self defence card.

[Slayhamlet]

So "semi-anonymous" pretty much means "completely anonymous", I take it?

[defaultdotxbe]

So "semi-anonymous" pretty much means "completely anonymous", I take it?
the name (or nickname, or initials) JJ make an appearance

"They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with"

and of course that little tidbit of identification makes the source completely reliable :rolleyes:

[Disbelief]

haha. Ok lets modify option 1-->The article and/or author is a lie.

The author is lying. Explain to me why this airman would have to remain silent? You do realize that he is under no obligation to follow an unlawful order, and that would be what he was told to do. Another truther who has no clue about military personnel.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3612761#post3612761)
So "semi-anonymous" pretty much means "completely anonymous", I take it?

the name (or nickname, or initials) JJ make an appearance

could it be...Jumpin Jehosephat!??


Quote:
"They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with"

and of course that little tidbit of identification makes the source completely reliable :rolleyes:

well Jumpin Jehosephat was a king of Judah dont you know. You wouldn't be calling a king a liar wouldja?

[OlbarStein]

Hi there,

first post so be gentle. ;-)

A reason to lie about it might be the law. Was a military plane even allowed to shoot down a civil airplane and who was able to give the order? I read that after 9/11 the rules were changed so that air force generals (?) are allowed to give such an order without consulting higher authorities (the president?).

There was a big discussion in Germany about this situation because after 9/11 a new law was introduced that allowed to shoot down civil airplanes that were confirmedly hijacked. The law was stopped by the federal court. The big fight began when the german defense minister announced that he would ignore the federal court ruling and would still shoot down planes.

So could the pilot be responsible of mass murder according to the law even though he did the right thing?

[SpitfireIX]

Hi there,

first post so be gentle. ;-)

A reason to lie about it might be the law. Was a military plane even allowed to shoot down a civil airplane and who was able to give the order? I read that after 9/11 the rules were changed so that air force generals (?) are allowed to give such an order without consulting higher authorities (the president?).

There was a big discussion in Germany about this situation because after 9/11 a new law was introduced that allowed to shoot down civil airplanes that were confirmedly hijacked. The law was stopped by the federal court. The big fight began when the german defense minister announced that he would ignore the federal court ruling and would still shoot down planes.

So could the pilot be responsible of mass murder according to the law even though he did the right thing?


Welcome, OlbarStein.

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#918.%20ART.%20118.%20MURDER):

918. ART. 118. MURDER
Any person subject to this chapter whom [sic] without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct. [bolding mine]


So the short answer is "no." The longer answer is that, especially if the pilot acted on his or her own initiative, he or she might technically be guilty of violation of orders or regulations, or violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the US military other that the Coast Guard from participating in law-enforcement activities on (or over) American territory.

[CHF]

Been a while since I saw Flight 93 being discussed.

Not surprisingly, the twoofers still can't seem to fit a shoot down into any sort of logical conspiracy.

[Dave Rogers]

Since we already know that the one missile unaccounted for was fired at WTC7 and caused its collapse, where did the missile that shot down flight 93 come from?

Dave

[SpitfireIX]

Since we already know that the one missile unaccounted for was fired at WTC7 and caused its collapse, where did the missile that shot down flight 93 come from?

Dave


:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:


Better watch out, though, this might bring you-know-who out from underneath his rock. :eek:

[defaultdotxbe]

Since we already know that the one missile unaccounted for was fired at WTC7 and caused its collapse, where did the missile that shot down flight 93 come from?

Dave
there was only 1 missile

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film

[I Ratant]

I would be surprised/appalled if the persons in the military who would have been involved in this alleged shootdown, or that similar allegation of TWA 800 being shot down would have kept quiet about it.
Or have been prevented from doing so.
There are way too many honorable personnel serving the country who respect their oath to the citizens of the USA, for all of them to not speak out when such an event occurs.
I would also expect such a story to more bullet-proof, with real information, than this one.

[stateofgrace]

Ok Lets have a look at what you say. You say it would make sense had flight 93 been shot down so why cover it up? You speculate it would cause less unification. Do you really think so?

Imagine had they shot it down and rather than try to cover it up admitted it, there and then. There would be no need for any massive cover stories, no need for anybody to keep quiet, no need for any form of faking of evidence, black boxes, phone calls, nothing whatsoever. All they had to do from day one was say "Hey yes we shot it down during a national emergency. We had no choice".

Does that unify the public? Would it galvanise public opinion further? If that was the sole aim of shooting down this flight then yes it could be exploited no end to unite public opinion. The potential to do this from shooting down one of your own aircrafts and admitting it is enormous. It goes right across the board from interviews with weeping pilots who were forced to do so, right up to the people who were forced to order them to do so. Do you honestly think that people would condemn such actions? Turn on the people who were forced to shoot down a civilian aircraft? No they would not; they would rightly condemn the people who put them in this dreadful position and had forced them to do so.Covering up the shooting down of one of your own aircrafts, when you are forced to do, would actually unite people a great deal further than not admitting it.

It makes no sense whatsoever that anybody who was forced into a position where they had to do something that they would, under normal circumstances not do, would not admit it. It makes a lot more sense to just admit it right from day one and play the self defence card.

I would like to correct this sentence, it should have read.

"Admitting the shooting down of your aircraft, when you are forced to do so, would actually unite people a great deal further than not admitting it."


Typo, sorry.

[fezzic]

Hypothetically speaking of course... but what would this administration have done if the military had shot down a plane in error on 9/11? One where after the fact it couldn’t be determined for sure if it was really hijacked or not?

You postulate a hypothetical where the plane is shot down in ERROR yet then sort of say what if nobody really knew if it was hijacked or not?

If it [definitely] was, then there is the explanation that the shootdown would be justified.

If it [definitely] was not, then the inquiry into who authorized the pilot (or if he fired on his own initiative) to let go a missile and WHY will determine if there anybody gets charged with a crime.

If it [definitely] could be either, the inquiry will still ask, "who authorized the firing of the missile" and WHY? Since the possibility exists that it was hijacked the issue would be was there enough evidence to support the decision to shoot down that plane and vice versa.

In all cases, the inquiry would try to determine the chain of events.

The Administration, other than making the command decision to authorize the military to shoot down hijacked aircraft, would probably have relatively little to do with exactly when a plane gets shot down. They would always have the explanation that they were working on the best information, even if it was wrong, available at the time.

It might be noted that an airliner, even if its transponder is off, flying pretty much along its normal flight plan would hardly raise such concerns, even on 9/11, that it would be shotdown just because its transponder was off. Presumably its radio also is not working.

If an armed fighter did find it, the fighter pilot would (if the airliner's radio wasn't working) indicate that the aircraft was to follow him. The aircraft would have to take a whole series of actions for the military to conclude that shooting it down was justified and even then they'd probably hold off as long as practical.

In my opinion...

[Jonnyclueless]

The US military HAS shot down commercial jets in error. And what have they done in those cases? They admitted to it.

[gumboot]

I notice the OP hasn't addressed the errors I have identified in the post...

[Sizzler]

Been a while since I saw Flight 93 being discussed.

Not surprisingly, the twoofers still can't seem to fit a shoot down into any sort of logical conspiracy.

I'll give it a go.....

All passengers from ALL 4 planes were on flight 93. The other 3 flights were drones that hit their targets.

Flight 93 was never supposed to hit its target. It was supposed to be shot down to eliminate people that would put one and one together after 9-11 and realize they were part of a conspiracy. There were a lot of military personel on the flights for example.

so basically flight93 was a way to get rid of those that would be able to figure out that they were part of a conspiracy. They knew too much and thus were taken out on flight 93.

It was covered up as a forced crash landing to strengthen the narrative and give the passengers a long legacy of bravery. When in reality they were just patsies of a larger conspiracy.

this of course is just speculation of possibility.:)

[Sizzler]

I notice the OP hasn't addressed the errors I have identified in the post...

sorry i missed your post. I'll have to take your word for it:)

[gtc]

this of course is just speculation of possibility.:)

I understand you are saying that this is just a theory. However, I wonder how they could have gotten the people off the real flights and onto flight 93 without them realising what was happening. I also wonder how they managed to land the four planes, swap passengers around and then send out the four planes again without everybody from flight controllers to civillian airport employees and so on noticing.

[Reheat]

I understand you are saying that this is just a theory. However, I wonder how they could have gotten the people off the real flights and onto flight 93 without them realising what was happening. I also wonder how they managed to land the four planes, swap passengers around and then send out the four planes again without everybody from flight controllers to civillian airport employees and so on noticing.

Hey, you ever watched "Back to the Future"? It's simple, that's how!

[defaultdotxbe]

I understand you are saying that this is just a theory. However, I wonder how they could have gotten the people off the real flights and onto flight 93 without them realising what was happening. I also wonder how they managed to land the four planes, swap passengers around and then send out the four planes again without everybody from flight controllers to civillian airport employees and so on noticing.
not to mention collecting all the remains of the passengers from the other 3 flights (leaving only the f93 victims remains in PA) and distributing the f77 victims remains at the pentagon (i dont recall is any victims from f11 and f175 were identified at the WTC)

Hey, you ever watched "Back to the Future"? It's simple, that's how!
to quote a recent stundie nom:

you think they made that movie 20 years ago and the government and havent been working on flux capacitors

[Sizzler]

I understand you are saying that this is just a theory. However, I wonder how they could have gotten the people off the real flights and onto flight 93 without them realising what was happening. I also wonder how they managed to land the four planes, swap passengers around and then send out the four planes again without everybody from flight controllers to civillian airport employees and so on noticing.

Yes this is the tricky part of such a theory.

To recap.

1. ALL passengers from all 4 flights were actually ALL on flight93 (I am pretty sure this works out in terms of numbers and available seats).

2. The other 3 flights were drones of some sort guided to their targets.

3. Passengers on flight93 were sensitive in respects to the overall conspiracy and needed to be taken out. If they lived through 9-11 they would have been able to figure out it was an inside job. In other words they unknowingly contributed to the plot.

4. The shoot down of flight93 was covered up as a forced crash to strengthen the official narrative and leave those murdered with a legacy of heroism. It would also keep out any nasty investigations by the military that may be necessary when civilians are killed on purpose for national security.

So the problem is,

1. How is it possible to have 3 empty flights with all of their passengers on a single flight? Someone would notice!!!

2. How were the remains later scattered at each crash site?

Well lets see;

1. I have no idea right now. I've been thinking about a way for awhile now but I just can't think of an effective way that would eliminate the need for the airline companies to be in on the conspiracy. Still thinking though.

2. Simple. The evidence is fabricated. There were no passenger remains at the crash sites. At least one conspirator was an FBI/CIA insider.

[Pardalis]

So who is this anonymous person? This whole theory rests on the validity of this person's statements, shouldn't it be the first thing to verify?

Siz, you don't trust the thousands of skilled and trained investigators from the various reports, and yet you believe this anonymous person?

[Sizzler]

So who is this anonymous person? This whole theory rests on the validity of this person's statements, shouldn't it be the first thing to verify?

Siz, you don't trust the thousands of skilled and trained investigators from the various reports, and yet you believe this anonymous person?

Well I never actually said I believe him. I actually don't know enough about this to pass judgement. Right now, I'd say his/her post on GWB is worthless.

However for the purpose of this thread I said lets assume it is true:)

One poster already posted information that debunks his/her account.

I was more interested in getting people's opinions about a possible military cover-up of flight 93. In a way I could see justification of covering up a shoot down to make it look like a forced crash.

OP was a little unfair so this thread hasn't really addressed my initial question but that is ok. Now we are talking about possible conspiracy theories. Wanna join in?

[Pardalis]

Now we are talking about possible conspiracy theories. Wanna join in?

I'll pass, but I see your point.

[CHF]

I'll give it a go.....

Hurray!

All passengers from ALL 4 planes were on flight 93. The other 3 flights were drones that hit their targets.Seems like a pointless thing to do, but go on....

Flight 93 was never supposed to hit its target. It was supposed to be shot down to eliminate people that would put one and one together after 9-11 and realize they were part of a conspiracy. There were a lot of military personel on the flights for example. so basically flight93 was a way to get rid of those that would be able to figure out that they were part of a conspiracy. They knew too much and thus were taken out on flight 93.
So rather than making them disappear into a mass grave someone out of sight, the conspirators decided to kill the passengers by shooting down their plane in broad daylight over rural PA, all the whole hoping that the AA missile didn't cause the plane to break up and scatter bodies over a wide area.

Oh and then I suppose they paid off the local coroner and air crash investigators to lie about how many bodies they uncovered.

It was covered up as a forced crash landing to strengthen the narrative and give the passengers a long legacy of bravery. When in reality they were just patsies of a larger conspiracy.How were the passengers "patsies?" Did they not wonder why they were taken off their original flights and crammed onto Flight 93?

this of course is just speculation of possibility.:)

Well that's some pretty stupid speculation, Sizzler.

But, sadly, it's as good a theory as any from your side so far.

[Jonnyclueless]

"How were the passengers "patsies?" Did they not wonder why they were taken off their original flights and crammed onto Flight 93?"

Remember the scene in the Austin Powers movie where Austin asks something that points out a paradox in time travel the response is "It's best if you try not to think of these things. And that goes for the audience as well".

[Drs_Res]

"How were the passengers "patsies?" Did they not wonder why they were taken off their original flights and crammed onto Flight 93?"

Remember the scene in the Austin Powers movie where Austin asks something that points out a paradox in time travel the response is "It's best if you try not to think of these things. And that goes for the audience as well".

Here you go, from AP2: TSWSM:

Austin: So, Basil, if I travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, I could go look at my frozen self. But, if I'm still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the 90's and traveled back to the Sixties? Oh, no, I've gone cross-eyed.

Basil: I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself. (turns to camera): That goes for you, too!

[Reheat]

Oh and then I suppose they paid off the local coroner and air crash investigators to lie about how many bodies they uncovered.

I know you're just making a passing comment without a lot of thought, but I do need to point out that there very likely were NO BODIES.

In a crash like this they'd be very lucky to recover anything larger than a jaw bone, probably even smaller than that.

The DNA is sorted from pieces as small or smaller than your little finger nail. XXXX pounds of human flesh and bones sorted one tiny piece at a time. This is what the medical authorities at both Shanksville and the Pentagon were dealing with. And twoofers want to see bodies? They want to see airline seats and luggage? Well, if they could tolerate the smell and identify the pieces they likely would remember it for the rest of their life. It would be very difficult to determine the difference between a tiny piece of charred human flesh and a charred piece of seat cushion without laboratory analysis. And they wonder why there are no photos of these items?

How do I know this? When you walk through a high speed crash scene picking up tiny pieces of someone you knew or perhaps a friend, it's not easy to forget.

[gumboot]

I know you're just making a passing comment without a lot of thought, but I do need to point out that there very likely were NO BODIES.

In a crash like this they'd be very lucky to recover anything larger than a jaw bone, probably even smaller than that.


I believe the largest piece of human remains recovered at Shanksville was a piece of backbone about 6 inches long.

[I Ratant]

When the first Lockheed Electra lost its wings in flight, there was talk of unearthing the fuselage to get to the remains.
ISTR that idea was tabled.
There'd be nothing to see, just little pieces of all the people.
Comprehending the effect of such a crash on the human form escapes those people that think there would be anything to be gained.
But then, everything about the 9/11 event escapes them anyway.

[CHF]

I know you're just making a passing comment without a lot of thought, but I do need to point out that there very likely were NO BODIES.

Correct. I should have said "pieces of different bodies."

I'm pretty sure investigators would have been able to tell the difference between, say, 30 people being on a flight and 250+.

[gumboot]

Correct. I should have said "pieces of different bodies."

I'm pretty sure investigators would have been able to tell the difference between, say, 30 people being on a flight and 250+.


You'd have to assume the investigators were in on it - after all they claim to have recovered DNA from the aircraft passengers at all of the crash sites.

[funk de fino]

Back to the OP. The claimant is a lying piece of crap.

Probably a truther also

[TjW]

Yes this is the tricky part of such a theory.

To recap.

1. ALL passengers from all 4 flights were actually ALL on flight93 (I am pretty sure this works out in terms of numbers and available seats).

2. The other 3 flights were drones of some sort guided to their targets.

3. Passengers on flight93 were sensitive in respects to the overall conspiracy and needed to be taken out. If they lived through 9-11 they would have been able to figure out it was an inside job. In other words they unknowingly contributed to the plot.

4. The shoot down of flight93 was covered up as a forced crash to strengthen the official narrative and leave those murdered with a legacy of heroism. It would also keep out any nasty investigations by the military that may be necessary when civilians are killed on purpose for national security.

So the problem is,

1. How is it possible to have 3 empty flights with all of their passengers on a single flight? Someone would notice!!!

2. How were the remains later scattered at each crash site?

Well lets see;

1. I have no idea right now. I've been thinking about a way for awhile now but I just can't think of an effective way that would eliminate the need for the airline companies to be in on the conspiracy. Still thinking though.

2. Simple. The evidence is fabricated. There were no passenger remains at the crash sites. At least one conspirator was an FBI/CIA insider.

It doesn't explain why the conspirators would leave the loose end of a missile missing from inventory. If you're going to shoot it down, shoot it down, and simply spin it as the horrible tragedy that it was.

If you're not going to claim it had to be shot it down, and you have the capability of three pinpoint accuracy remote controlled airliners, why not build a fourth, and crash it deliberately to match the story you're going to tell?

Also, you now need to include all the personnel who worked on the drone airliners in the conspiracy. Not only those who worked on them directly, but everyone who is conversant with the state of the art in remote control of large aircraft, both in the U.S. and worldwide.

[Dave Rogers]

If you're not going to claim it had to be shot it down, and you have the capability of three pinpoint accuracy remote controlled airliners, why not build a fourth, and crash it deliberately to match the story you're going to tell?

And while you're at it, why not put the passengers on board the drones representing the airliners they started out on? That way, the DNA evidence all ends up in the right places.

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

In Sizzler's hypothetical, I wonder how they decided who would sit on who's lap.

[A W Smith]

And while you're at it, why not put the passengers on board the drones representing the airliners they started out on? That way, the DNA evidence all ends up in the right places.

Dave


technical question, how do you sort out the correct victims from one crash. Seeing as they are yet unidentifiable and redistribute them to their "correct" crash sites?

[stateofgrace]

Yes this is the tricky part of such a theory.

To recap.

1. ALL passengers from all 4 flights were actually ALL on flight93 (I am pretty sure this works out in terms of numbers and available seats).

2. The other 3 flights were drones of some sort guided to their targets.

3. Passengers on flight93 were sensitive in respects to the overall conspiracy and needed to be taken out. If they lived through 9-11 they would have been able to figure out it was an inside job. In other words they unknowingly contributed to the plot.

4. The shoot down of flight93 was covered up as a forced crash to strengthen the official narrative and leave those murdered with a legacy of heroism. It would also keep out any nasty investigations by the military that may be necessary when civilians are killed on purpose for national security.

So the problem is................<snip>



Ok,I stopped reading right here.

The problem is, is it is insane, wild speculation based on nothing other than an over active imagination ok?