FLIGHT 93 Shot Down and Lied About? Rumsfeld video.

[Pardalis]

Besides, this missile must have come from a military jet plane right?

Who witnessed seeing or hearing a military jet in the area?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

I know the missile theory can be argued but for instance, a Korean Airline 747 was hit by two Russian missiles in 1983, yet continued to fly for almost two more minutes.

Yet your missile was heard at Shanksville immediately before the explosion. At 500 mph the plane would be over 16 miles away in 2 minutes, yet it crashed exactly where your witness heard a "missile". Your witness does not report hearing the plane impact the ground, IMHO that is because the explosion he heard was the plane hitting the ground, and the missile he heard was also the plane.

How loud is a missile at 10,000 feet Russell, as heard from the ground?

[WildCat]

Hey, I'm just asking questions and demanding answers Russell...

[Moving On]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

I know the missile theory can be argued but for instance, a Korean Airline 747 was hit by two Russian missiles in 1983, yet continued to fly for almost two more minutes.

The first one could be interpreted different ways.

Quote:

Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that “wasn’t quite right” and looks up in the sky. “It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone,” going “so fast that you couldn’t even make out what color it was.”

[St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/2001]

Quote:

An unnamed witness says he hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.

[News Channel 5 (Cleveland), 9/11/2001]

Quote:

Laura Temyer of Hooversville: “I didn’t see the plane but I heard the plane’s engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane’s engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn’t hear the plane’s engine anymore after that.” (She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.)

[Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/2001]

Quote:

Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side.

[ABC News, 9/11/2001]

I agree it is confusing.

[TellyKNeasuss]

"Witness Joe Wilt, 63, said he heard a whistling like a missile, then a loud boom as he stood in the doorway of his Shanksville home across the road from the site. His view was blocked by a group of trees, but he said he saw a fireball rise 800 feet into the air, then give way to black smoke."

Ummm, how does this description fit with UA93 being shot down? He heard a "missile" then saw something crash. This means that if there was in fact a missile then it must have struck UA93 at about the same time as UA93 hit the ground, right?

"He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile. ... Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor."

Again, this implies that if there was a missile that UA93 must have been almost to the ground already. Otherwise, wouldn't he have a heard an explosion when the missile struck UA93 and then another some amount of time later when UA93 crashed?

[Pardalis]

Keep talking to yourself Russell...

[Housefly]

Quote:

Joe Wilt, who lives a quarter-mile from the crash site, hears a “whistling like a missile, then a loud boom.” He says, “The first thing I thought it was, was a missile.”

Wow, that description sounds nothing like a jumbo jet crashing at 500 miles per hour.

[Housefly]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

If the president and vice president refuse to testify under oath, individually with a verbatim account of their testimony, I have to wonder too.

I quote someone on this board, and apologise for forgetting who said it first:

Bush is evil enough to plot the deaths of 3000 Americans but not evil enough to lie under oath?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Housefly

Wow, that description sounds nothing like a jumbo jet crashing at 500 miles per hour.

Yeah, whoda thunk...

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

I know the missile theory can be argued but for instance, a Korean Airline 747 was hit by two Russian missiles in 1983, yet continued to fly for almost two more minutes.

Russell talking about planes that got shot down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4678707.stm

Yet the US admitted, straight away, to the entire world. They made a mistake and owned up.

So why cover up shooting down Flight 93?

[Muckar-duva]

Shooting 93 would have emphasised the threat. Nobody would have objected. Maybe people in the range of hologram troofers, but that would probably be it. If anything, it would have reinforced the attack situations seriousness.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

NOTE TO NUETRAL READERS:

Do you see how personal attack, insinuation and misdirection are used here?

Then a string of posts to bury the discussion totally unrelated to the thread?

I don't know how to account for this behavior which appears sometimes to be a group function, but it is worthy of notice!

Is someone upset that people won't play along with their quote misinterpretations and speculative theorizing? You know, the kids over at Loose Change forums and Pilots for Truth are eager to consume the crap you're shovelling.

And yes, that was personal. If I stand accused of something, I at least want to give the accuser a foundation on which to base his claim.

[Moving On]

I understand your various questions and would love to answer them. I guess I kind of feel like the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission must have felt in this interview with CBC news.

Quote:

Solomon: So, just in terms of Mineta, just because I think that's sort of interesting, when Secretary Mineta made at your Commission hearing, I think he did this May 23rd, that he arrived and talked to Dick Cheney at 9:20 - that would show that Mr. Cheney had had some earlier knowledge that planes had been hijacked and they wanted to take action. That was not -

Hamilton: What did the Secretary say at that time to the Vice President?

Solomon: They talked about a plane being hijacked, according to the testimony that I’ve seen, according to the Mineta report. But there’s another one, in Richard Clarke’s book, "Against All Enemies", and I know Richard Clarke took the stand very famously - not the stand, but testified before the Commission very famously - he says he received authorization from Dick Cheney to shoot down Flight 93 at about 9:50 am. In the Commission's Report, it said the authorization didn't come from Dick Cheney until 10:25, and Richard Clarke’s testimony that he and his book, isn’t mentioned in the Commission’s .. Why didn't you mention that?

Hamilton: Look, you’ve obviously gone through the report with a fine-toothed comb, you're raising a lot of questions - I can do the same thing...

Solomon: Yeah..

Hamilton: ..all I want from you is evidence. You’re just citing a lot of things, without any evidence to back them up, as far as I can see.

Solomon: No, I'm just asking why they weren't -

Hamilton: I don’t know the answer to your question.

Solomon: I guess part of the reason is.
.
Hamilton: I cannot answer every question with regard to 9/11. I can answer a good many of them, but I can't answer them all.

Solomon: I guess, Mr. Hamilton, I don’t think anyone expects you to have all the answers...

Hamilton: Well, you apparently do, because you have asked me questions of enormous detail from a great variety of sources. You want me to answer them all - I can’t do it (laughs)

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

[Mince]

Everyone;

The CTs were right. They've started filling the FEMA camps. I would say run, but there is nowhere to run.


http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntitledru9.png

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

I understand your various questions and would love to answer them. I guess I kind of feel like the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission must have felt in this interview with CBC news.

Evidence that flight 93 was, or could have been, shot down? None.

Evidence that flight 93 was flown into the ground intact? Lots.

Next.

[Moving On]

Again like Lee Hamilton says, sometimes you just aren't given enough time to answer all the questions properly. I do hope he's right about new information coming out though.

Quote:

"It was a huge amount of data to sort through," says Hamilton in a phone interview. "We put a tremendous weight on the facts. But doing something this complex in the amount of time we were given was difficult. Oh, there were loose ends. This is only the first draft of history. It's held up well. But I don't believe we have written the final draft. There's bound to be some information that comes out which we didn't have then."

http://www.freetimes.com/story/681

[Moving On]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Evidence that flight 93 was, or could have been, shot down? None.

Evidence that flight 93 was flown into the ground intact? Lots.

Next.

Gravy,

You do mean the evidence as it was presented to us right?

Because neither of us have direct access to the actual Flight 93 evidence.

You only have what the people who tried to prevent a 9/11 investigation in the first place, then initially refused to testify before the Commission and when they finally did refused to take an oath have given us right?

Then the people on the Commission who released the data had been misled as well.

Quote:

"We were misled by the FAA and NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command]," he says. Neither wanted the American people to know how unprepared they'd been. "When we went to NORAD command center in New York, we found tapes that had not been furnished to the commission. By listening to those tapes, we discovered that their official story didn't add up. So we issued subpoenas and started from scratch."

http://www.freetimes.com/story/681

The Mineta testimony was not included either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2c8IKemYI

So you're saying the trickle of evidence you have been fed doesn't support it - right?

Would it make sense to assume if they didn't want you to know something they would present the evidence for it?

Russell

[W6102LA]

Not much chance of Flight 93 being shot down by a missile when then F-16's weren't armed with any....

Quote:

F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93
By William B. Scott/Aviation Week & Space Technology
September 9, 2002

Quote:

Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to "Get in the air now!" Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington.

One of those F-16s launched with no armament--no missiles and no usable ammunition in its 20-mm. gun. The other two "Vipers" only had a full load of 20-mm. "ball" or training rounds, not the high-explosive incendiary (HEI) bullets required for combat, and no air-to-air missiles.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/aw090971.xml

[Housefly]

Well duh. Flight 93 was shot down by the Death Star.

[WildCat]

Russell, are you ever going to address the mounds of physical evidence?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

Gravy,

You do mean the evidence as it was presented to us right?

Because neither of us have direct access to the actual Flight 93 evidence.

You only have what the people who tried to prevent a 9/11 investigation in the first place, then initially refused to testify before the Commission and when they finally did refused to take an oath have given us right?

Then the people on the Commission who released the data had been misled as well.

The Mineta testimony was not included either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2c8IKemYI

So you're saying the trickle of evidence you have been fed doesn't support it - right?

Would it make sense to assume if they didn't want you to know something they would present the evidence for it?

Russell

I'm sorry that my posts in this thread have been so hard to understand. I'll try to be more clear and concise:

You: no evidence.
Us: evidence.

[W6102LA]

Originally Posted by Housefly

Well duh. Flight 93 was shot down by the Death Star.

There has been unconfirmed reports that the Death Star "down for maintenance" and was also on the opposite side of the Earth at the time.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by W6102LA

There has been unconfirmed reports that the Death Star "down for maintenance" and was also on the opposite side of the Earth at the time.

Your lack of faith is disturbing...

[tsig]

Originally Posted by W6102LA

There has been unconfirmed reports that the Death Star "down for maintenance" and was also on the opposite side of the Earth at the time.

"down for maint" was the cover story.

[hellaeon]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

The mayor confirms the two accounts above.

These people heard sounds russell. Not missles. Thats what they thought it sounded like. I guess its not unreasonable considering we dont often hear jetliners cruising at 500 friggin kph a couple of hundred meters above our heads

[Aussie Thinker]

Russell,

Quote:

NOTE TO NUETRAL READERS:

Do you see how personal attack, insinuation and misdirection are used here?

Then a string of posts to bury the discussion totally unrelated to the thread?

I don't know how to account for this behavior which appears sometimes to be a group function, but it is worthy of notice!

I can hardly be called a “neutral” reader but I do follow these threads with some interest and rarely pipe in!

Up until now I believed you to be a breath of fresh air amongst the CT crowd. It seemed to me you were reasonable, intelligent and really seeking the truth.

HOWEVER.. you seem to have lapsed into the same inanity the CT crowd has.

You REFUSE to address the logic, background and reason for any action you have proposed happened and just keep repeating the questions and suspicions ad-nauseum.

Please do me a favour and restore the faith I had in you when you began !

You have been shown over and over again the inanity of a missile strike.

1. There is NO evidence for it.. when missile strikes ALWAYS leave evidence
2. It is contradictory to BOTH the CT theories AND the official story
3. It is not logical for any party to have done it and lied about it
4. There IS evidence for a plane being flown straight into the ground.

Yet none of this as dissuaded you from repeating you suspicion that a missile strike took out the plane !

Russell.. keep questioning stuff.. but like the your conclusion there WAS a plane at the Pentagon you must finally and critically decide that NO plane was shot down !

[gumboot]

Russell, in this matter you are way off base.

The following are facts regarding UA93, 9/11, hijackings, and shoot down orders:

1- As per FAA Regulations, use of military force in a hijacking scenario must be authorised by the Secretary of Defence or someone of higher level authority
2- NORAD aircraft, at the time UA93 crashed, did not have permission to use force
3- F-16 fighters scrambled from Andrews AFB did have permission to use force, but were not armed. Pilots discussed ramming the aircraft
4- No shoot-down order was issued by the executive until after UA93 had crashed
5- The FDR from UA93 indicates the aircraft was intact, under normal power, and functioning normally at time of impact
6- The CVR from UA93 indicates that passengers were attempting to storm the cockpit at the time of impact

These facts, both individually and accumulatively, indicate your hypothesis regarding UA93 is incorrect. It was not shot down.

The "Cover-up" by NORAD, as you term it, was that they hid the fact they would have had very low probability of preventing UA93 hitting its target, had the passengers not intervened.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Russell, in this matter you are way off base.

The following are facts regarding UA93, 9/11, hijackings, and shoot down orders:

1- As per FAA Regulations, use of military force in a hijacking scenario must be authorised by the Secretary of Defence or someone of higher level authority
2- NORAD aircraft, at the time UA93 crashed, did not have permission to use force
3- F-16 fighters scrambled from Andrews AFB did have permission to use force, but were not armed. Pilots discussed ramming the aircraft
4- No shoot-down order was issued by the executive until after UA93 had crashed
5- The FDR from UA93 indicates the aircraft was intact, under normal power, and functioning normally at time of impact
6- The CVR from UA93 indicates that passengers were attempting to storm the cockpit at the time of impact

These facts, both individually and accumulatively, indicate your hypothesis regarding UA93 is incorrect. It was not shot down.

The "Cover-up" by NORAD, as you term it, was that they hid the fact they would have had very low probability of preventing UA93 hitting its target, had the passengers not intervened.

-Gumboot

I think the F-16, if they found 93 could have flamed out the engines by flying if front of and making sure their jet exhaust goes down the intake of the 757 engines.

Disrupting the engines would flame them out and damage them.

This would force the jet down. Wonder if the pilots would think of it. Just fling in front would interfere with the airliner.

Just a thought. Why not try.

[Pythra]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

NOTE TO NUETRAL READERS:

Do you see how personal attack, insinuation and misdirection are used here?

Then a string of posts to bury the discussion totally unrelated to the thread?

I don't know how to account for this behavior which appears sometimes to be a group function, but it is worthy of notice!

I'm not a neutral reader now, but I was when I first started reading this board. I wasn't familiar with conspiracy theories so the evidence presented from both sides of the debate was new to me.

I can confidently say that poor conduct has been shown by both sides of the discussion at times, but what is ultimately important is evidence. Evaded questions, ignored explanations and prematurely abandoned discussions (the vast majority of this behaviour has been shown by CTers by the way, as I'm sure the 'neautral readers' will have observed) are meaningless when there's real evidence brought to the table.

If you want the support of neutral readers, present some evidence. It's as simple as that.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Russell, are you ever going to address the mounds of physical evidence?

Russell, are you going to seek the truth or have you too sunk into the CT gutter of cherry-picked quotes, quotes out of context, analysis of over-compressed video, ignoring mounds of physical evidence, etc?

I must admit, I expected better of you, my fault for overestimating your integrity apparently. It's all about min ing for that "gotcha" quote and politics, and not at all about finding the truth in the CT world. And in some cases, like your buddy Dyalan and the LTW crew, it's about making money off the graves of 9/11 victims and becoming a somebody who can lead around a small army of ignorant idiots.

Gonna be interesting to see how the troofers feel about their decisions in 5, 10, 20 years.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Pythra

If you want the support of neutral readers, present some evidence. It's as simple as that.

I concur. As a semi lurker and former 'neutral reader', I have to admit that the vast majority of side-stepping around evidence contrary to ones opinion is performed by the CTs.

Russell, with all due respect, for every CT who comes on this board with preconceived notions that will never be swayed by ANY evidence, no matter how compelling, there are probably 2 or 3 fence-sitters who read every word of every thread who have.

IMO that's why people here take the time to debate with those who refuse to listen to reason; there are unseen listeners here. We are the ones who actually look at both sides of the issue.

for example, we actually READ Gravy's paper AS WELL as watch LC and other truther videos. We actually READ the NIST report as well as Jones' paper. Faced with both sides of the issue, IMO no rational person could think the evidence is anywhere near the slam-dunk that you all think it is.

OK. Rant over.

[Darth Rotor]

Russ, your attention in directed to this post of mine, and gumboot's post a few down from mine in the same thread.

What are my qualifications to discuss this? One. Navy Pilot. Two. Formal training (class room) on air to air missile engagements at NFWS in 1980, and both classroom and field training on SAM and AAM at NAS Fallon, and via formal training at home field (San Diego) over a two year period in early 1990's. We were at the time learning missile evasion methods in helicopters, which for our ASW community was rather new stuff. Also experienced in Joint Air to Air C2 from various watchstanding duties in Navy and Joint Air Command and Control staffs.

Missile attack would have left considerable evidence on the FDR's. In this case, absence of evidence precludes missile attack on Flight 93 as the cause of shootdown. All hot air, discussion, speculation, and otherwise non material evidence is over come by the FDR evidence that aircraft had all systems running, not dmaged by missile strike, at time of impact.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Pursue pre 9-11 conspiracies if you like, but this one isn't worth wasting your time and energy on.

DR

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Russell Pickering

How similar is a plane being shot down and passenger heroes taking control of an aircraft and saving America from a fourth terrorist attack? How would the terrorists have "shot down" the plane - did they have fighter jets too? Those are two completely different concepts with no similarity at all. If you were certain of the Flight 93 story how could you even think of the notion it had been shot down?

Actually you are confusing the issue here. Although some have speculated that the passengers got into the cockpit and certainly they were trying, the current belief and the belief then is that they didn't succeed before the plane actually crashed. Ergo, what happened is that the hijackeres crashed the plane. So what Rumsfeld should have said is "the people who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania".

Quote:

What about Cheney?

So let's try and imagine the situation. Cheney and Rice are in an underground bunker. From the 9/11 Commission Report we know the phone line to the president wasn't working. Cheney had just given shootdown orders. His aides were "frantic". Attacks had already occurred killing thousands. Washington was being evacuated and false reports of every kind were flying everywhere. The aides were trying to find out if our own military had shot the aircraft down. But Cheney says, ".... sort of softly and to nobody in particular, 'I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.'" Stop and think about that for a second.

What could he have possibly based that statement on? Even his aide noticed Cheney was, “a little bit ahead of us”. I would go so far as to say he was a lot ahead of everybody. There was absolutely no possible way that Cheney was aware of the alleged cell phone calls and most certainly he had not heard the cockpit voice recorder. Where did he get his idea from? Was it a pre-planned story? Was it his cover story for giving illegal shootdown orders without the president's approval?

Work it out. Cheney knew that three planes had crashed into large buildings. A fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Cheney knew that the plane had not been shot down. Ergo, the possibilities left are that the plane was deliberately crashed by the hijackers, or accidentally or deliberately crashed by the passengers who had retaken control of the plane, or some combination thereof.

More important, what would be the motive to lie about this? And how does the supposed shooting down of Flight 93 fit with the rest of the conspiracy theory? Answer: It doesn't. It's just another opportunity for the 9-11 Denial crowd to go "Woooo!"

[gumboot]

I believe a number of other aircraft spotted UA93 in the air in the few moments before it crashed, and reported it was "waving its wings" (flying eratically). This fits in conjunction with the theory that the terrorists threw the aircraft around to try prevent the passengers reaching the cockpit.

-Gumboot