3292 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

[Kludge808]

Hmmm ... if it was shot down then there would be wreckage at Shanksville.  But if there was no wreckage then it couldn't have been shot down.

Oooh, post #666 ... how cool is that?

Edited by Kludge808, 26 December 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

Kludge is right - to anyone who does not accept the evidence that an airliner at least may have crashed at Pennsylvania in the first place, I would not even try to prove a shootdown.  To anyone else, please see my posts #1997 & #1999 for a basic overview of the evidence: -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt?  Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late.  Failing that, we need a whistleblower.  The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved, of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands.  Though I see no reason anyone should be rushing to reveal this when the shootdown and cover-up were necessary and in interest of protecting the United States and pilot responsible.  Perhaps in another 20-40 years someone will speak out.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 26 December 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Yes there is you numpty.  It’s written plain as day in Directive 3025.1, “When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters...”.  You obviously have reading and/or comprehension difficulties and/or are deliberately ignoring black and white facts.

What conditions? Just because an aircraft is hijacked is not justification to shoot down an airliner. You are misinterpreting what the directive means. Check it out: Brig. Gen. David F. Wherley, Jr., the 113th Wing commander, was on-site, trying to determine whether the unit had authorization to launch fighters.

Quote

... the red text in the link you have quoted is media commentary/opinion which is not always the most accurate, and is in reference to the hijacked Flight 11; the first airliner to impact a target – at which time commanders could not know there was an imminent and serious threat to life and/or property which might prompt them to “Immediate Response” so the pilot comment is no surprise:

How would they have known if another airliner had planned to strike a building? Without orders, vectors, and briefings, how would a pilot know which aircraft was United 93 or not? In fact, how would a pilot know if a particular aircraft was hijacked? Even if they intercepted the airliners, they were in ID mode only with no orders to shoot down anything and as I have said, there were no such orders issued during the time that United 93 was airborne.

Quote

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash".

And that is what the pilots would have done because they had no idea that American 11 was going to crash into WTC1. Dealing with bombers and fighters is one thing, but dealing with an airliner is another.

Quote

Not so, when it came to Flight 93 which is the proposed subject of a shootdown – awareness had increased and U.S. air defenses had upped their game by that point over an hour after the first crash.

Without an order, there was no way that United 93 was going to be shot down near Shanksville, especially in the area where it crashed. The pilot went on to say:"... there are plenty of hard reasons to not shoot somebody down. We were really in an ID posture--and trying to really be careful."

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 December 2012 - 07:32 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

So, how do we prove it was shot down?

There are many ways to determine whether an aircraft was shot down or not. Radar data for one, which no such evidence exist for United 93, ground-to-air communications and intercept vectoring instructions for which there are none for United 93.

Secondly, satellite data can be used in conjunction to confirm whether an aircraft was shot down or not, but no such data exist for United 93; in other words, black box, seismic, radar, and satellite data can all be used to determine whether an aircraft was shot down or not and yet no such data exist that supports a shoot down and when you tie in the ATC and NEAD communication tape along with the technical data it is evident the military had no idea where United 93 was in order to vector interceptors to its location and when used used in conjunction with the communication tapes, they will prove that United 93 was not shot down at all.

Even while F-16s were flying CAP over Washington D.C., aircraft were still flying below those fighters despite Washington approach broadcasting this message: 'Anyone flying within 25 mi. of the Washington Tacan is authorized to be shot down.'  How far is Washington D.C. from Shanksville?

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 December 2012 - 07:47 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 26 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt?

Simple! Satellite data.

Quote

Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late.

First of all, you have to place interceptors in the location where United 93 had crashed, and radar data does not depict fighters near United 93 when it crashed and remember, the military had no idea as to the location of United 93 and we have that ATC communication tape where the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed, and since the military was unaware of that fact in order to vector interceptors to United 93, effectively drains the claims of 9/11 conspiracist folks.

Quote

...Failing that, we need a whistleblower.  The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved,...

The President of the United States is at the top of the chain of command and he did not issue the shootdown order until after United 93 crashed and we have reviewed the video statement of the pilot that 9/11 conspiracist have claimed was responsible for pulling the trigger. In his video statement he said nothing about shooting down United 93. In case it was missed, here is his video.

Quote

...of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands.

The F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD techniques and its protocols nor were they in the communication loop of NEADS and NORAD. To further underline that point, Lt. Colonel Phil Thompson said it best when he said:

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise..."

He was the chief of safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 December 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 26 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Kludge is right - to anyone who does not accept the evidence that an airliner at least may have crashed at Pennsylvania in the first place, I would not even try to prove a shootdown.  To anyone else, please see my posts #1997 & #1999 for a basic overview of the evidence: -

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4157141

How do we prove it beyond anyone's doubt?  Physical inspection of the debris to check for damage type and/or explosive residues might have done it, though obviously that was not carried out and it’s now too late.  Failing that, we need a whistleblower.  The pilot who pulled the trigger is the obvious candidate or someone from or connected to the chain of command involved, of which there were numerous; NORAD, the Secret Service, regional commands.  Though I see no reason anyone should be rushing to reveal this when the shootdown and cover-up were necessary and in interest of protecting the United States and pilot responsible.  Perhaps in another 20-40 years someone will speak out.

That's rich Q, even for you.

It cannot be proven, but you're going to pass on the ATTEMPT to prove it simply because you have a skeptical audience.

You're exactly right though, if it HAD been shot down the shooter would have become a national hero.  Finally, the mighty NORAD and Pentagon did what they were supposed to do.  But no such luck.  And if it had been shot down with box cutter bearing arabs onboard, they would have invited the world to peruse the various debris.

Instead, the feds cordoned off an area in the woods and let nobody in, not even the local authorities and coroner.  They fed him DNA samples, and he signed off on the death certificates.

And if they had shot it down, the unit would not have been still communicating with ACARS 30 minutes later.

Discretion is the better part of valor Q, and I commend you for knowing when to fold 'em.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Instead, the feds cordoned off an area in the woods and let nobody in, not even the local authorities and coroner.

Ever been to a crime scene where  yellow tape cordoned off an area?

Quote

They fed him DNA samples, and he signed off on the death certificates.

Not sure where you are going with that when family members confirmed their deaths as well. In addition:

Quote

Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone. Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total

Quote

...and if they had shot it down, the unit would not have been still communicating with ACARS 30 minutes later.

United 93 was not responding after the B-757 crashed. Call the folks at ARINC as I have done and let them clue you in on ACARS.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 December 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Kludge808]

Darn it folks, I already told you what happened.  To repeat myself - which is really bad form, I know - I'll tell you all again what happened.

A B-52 can carry 20 AGM-86 cruise missiles, 12 externally and eight internally.  The AGM-86 has a nominal range of slightly under 700 miles and flies at around 500 kts.  While they don't usually fly in formation, it's well known by those of us who Know Things About Stuff they can and are quite adept at it.  It is also well known among us All Knowing Ones that all airliners as well as many other aircraft can be controlled from a remote location, specifically Raven Rock, although most airline crew & maintenance techs don't know about this and those who do are government agents sworn to utmost secrecy.  It's obvious, really, except to those blinded by the Official Version who refuse to see the Truth.

So anyway, on to the events of 9/11 ...

All hands know and accept that all four flights took off as usual.  The conspiracy begins, however, before that since the alleged hijackers weren't even aboard them.  All indications they were came from the government's coverup.  At some point in each aircraft's flight, with each one being somewhat different, all four were indeed hijacked but by operatives at Raven Rock who took command of the aircraft.

Flights 11 and 175 turned out to sea then turned South at what as essentially a wave top altitude.  In their place were two 767s that had been painted to look like the original aircraft but had no one aboard.  Instead they were loaded with fuel and explosives so they made a Really Big Badaboom when they hit the WTC.  The collisions also set off timers for later explosive charges that brought the buildings down in a rather neat pile.

Flight 93 did, in fact, dive but it did so to get it under the radar while it also flew back East.  Anyone who saw this low level flight was silenced in any of a number of ways ranging from bribes to termination and/or disappearance.  The crater which was supposed to be where it crashed was caused by several of the aforementioned cruise missiles flying into the ground where the "physical evidence" had previously been planted.

Flight 77 presented a special case which was quickly managed by having several more cruise missiles flying into the building in formation to cause a large enough impact point while the 757 overflew the building.  In what was probably the finest example of split second timing, the C-130 seen in the area did a low level drop of the alleged wreckage then got out of the way of both the cruise missiles and the 757.

All of the radar, ATC, ACARS, FDR etc data was faked and witnesses were hand fed testimony that either agreed with or was totally against the Official Version.  The latter helped spread the multiple conspiracy theories while hiding the real conspiracy.

Where did the airplanes wind up?  Andrews was too obvious so they went to Pax River NAS where they were repainted white with the windows covered over and the assorted identifiers faked.  The passengers and crew were loaded back aboard and the aircraft flown - again from Raven Rock - to a scattering of black ops airfields where they were moved to the well known white trucks and transported to the various UN NWO camps where they have been ever since.

There is so much more but it's all obvious to those of us who are Truly Discerning Thinkers.

[DONTEATUS]

Merry Christmas Skyeagle ! on your Six !

[Lion6969]

Personally I think the official report for 9-11 is more of a conspiracy than those questioning it!

I think all mililtary personnel should ditch Kevlar and go for the robust material that atta's passport was made of....they'll survive bullets but also intense fires and heat etc! They will be invincible!!!

[frenat]

Kludge808, on 26 December 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Darn it folks, I already told you what happened.  To repeat myself - which is really bad form, I know - I'll tell you all again what happened.

A B-52 can carry 20 AGM-86 cruise missiles, 12 externally and eight internally.  The AGM-86 has a nominal range of slightly under 700 miles and flies at around 500 kts.  While they don't usually fly in formation, it's well known by those of us who Know Things About Stuff they can and are quite adept at it.  It is also well known among us All Knowing Ones that all airliners as well as many other aircraft can be controlled from a remote location, specifically Raven Rock, although most airline crew & maintenance techs don't know about this and those who do are government agents sworn to utmost secrecy.  It's obvious, really, except to those blinded by the Official Version who refuse to see the Truth.

So anyway, on to the events of 9/11 ...

All hands know and accept that all four flights took off as usual.  The conspiracy begins, however, before that since the alleged hijackers weren't even aboard them.  All indications they were came from the government's coverup.  At some point in each aircraft's flight, with each one being somewhat different, all four were indeed hijacked but by operatives at Raven Rock who took command of the aircraft.

Flights 11 and 175 turned out to sea then turned South at what as essentially a wave top altitude.  In their place were two 767s that had been painted to look like the original aircraft but had no one aboard.  Instead they were loaded with fuel and explosives so they made a Really Big Badaboom when they hit the WTC.  The collisions also set off timers for later explosive charges that brought the buildings down in a rather neat pile.

Flight 93 did, in fact, dive but it did so to get it under the radar while it also flew back East.  Anyone who saw this low level flight was silenced in any of a number of ways ranging from bribes to termination and/or disappearance.  The crater which was supposed to be where it crashed was caused by several of the aforementioned cruise missiles flying into the ground where the "physical evidence" had previously been planted.

Flight 77 presented a special case which was quickly managed by having several more cruise missiles flying into the building in formation to cause a large enough impact point while the 757 overflew the building.  In what was probably the finest example of split second timing, the C-130 seen in the area did a low level drop of the alleged wreckage then got out of the way of both the cruise missiles and the 757.

All of the radar, ATC, ACARS, FDR etc data was faked and witnesses were hand fed testimony that either agreed with or was totally against the Official Version.  The latter helped spread the multiple conspiracy theories while hiding the real conspiracy.

Where did the airplanes wind up?  Andrews was too obvious so they went to Pax River NAS where they were repainted white with the windows covered over and the assorted identifiers faked.  The passengers and crew were loaded back aboard and the aircraft flown - again from Raven Rock - to a scattering of black ops airfields where they were moved to the well known white trucks and transported to the various UN NWO camps where they have been ever since.

There is so much more but it's all obvious to those of us who are Truly Discerning Thinkers.

Is it April 1st already?

[Kludge808]

frenat, on 27 December 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Is it April 1st already?

Nah, I just figured if the CTists could get creative, I could refresh folks' memories on what real creativity is.

[Czero 101]

Lion6969, on 26 December 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Personally I think the official report for 9-11 is more of a conspiracy than those questioning it!

I think all mililtary personnel should ditch Kevlar and go for the robust material that atta's passport was made of....they'll survive bullets but also intense fires and heat etc! They will be invincible!!!

Take a piece of paper and wave it as fast as you can through an open flame.

Did it catch fire?

No?

So why do those who promote / believe the CT also believe it impossible for a passport - or any of the other myriad examples of paper objects that survived the crashes at the WTC and similar examples from many other crashes, fires, explosions - traveling much faster than you can wave that piece of paper through a flame to have survived?

Its one thing to ask how it could have survived, but people who make claims that it couldn't or shouldn't have survived only show their ignorance and unwillingness to actually learn things for themselves or test things themselves.








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 27 December 2012 - 12:29 AM.

[Czero 101]

Kludge808, on 27 December 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Nah, I just figured if the CTists could get creative, I could refresh folks' memories on what real creativity is.

Good to see you back, Kludge...




Cz