1211 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

If there were any significant debris in that plume it would be raining down right there due to the minimal breeze present.  Look at it - the breeze could barely carry the smoke plume at that level, never mind sweep debris in one mass 6 miles away.

That photo was snapped while the plume was still exploding upwards.  Here we see it being blown...



Honestly Q24, have you just skipped over my posts here in the last couple of days?  This is all repeat information.  Are you going to make me repeat the information from USAir Flight 427 too?

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Not necessarily – for instance, if the heavy debris remained attached to the plane.

And do you know, I’m not convinced which way that plane came from in any case.

The official flight paths/identity of any given aircraft at any time can be deceptive.

Was it one of those new fan-dangled magnetic smart bombs?  Maybe Wile E Coyote and ACME were behind the whole damn thing eh?




You aren't convinced of the flight path?  Oh let me guess...  the RADAR data was faked too?




Honestly, this is getting ridiculous Q24.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Yes the USAF were right there – ATC, eyewitnesses and the AWACS pilot guiding the fighters all trump video lady.

Prove it.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Except for the passenger who reported an explosion and smoke.

Prove it.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Yes that’s right, as opposed to credible.

There is nothing to back-up that the passenger revolt was actually a success.  I’m trying to think what confirms it… all I can come up with is that if the flight wasn’t shot down then it must have been due to the passengers.  So there is no direct evidence the passenger revolt was a success, at best just a type of deduction that it must have been… and only because you don’t want to accept the shootdown (which has more direct evidence in the first place).

Everything corroborates the passenger revolt.  Everything.



You are the one avoiding things.  Answer the damn question I posed about why there is no debris north of the debris field.  If the plane had been shot minutes before there should be debris north of the debris field.  There wasn't.  Why?  Because Flight 93 wasn't shot down.

Come on Q24.  You are an extremely intelligent guy.  Why are you arguing against the facts?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

Honestly Q24, have you just skipped over my posts here in the last couple of days?  This is all repeat information.  Are you going to make me repeat the information from USAir Flight 427 too?

That would be pointless as your previous posts do not dispute anything I have said.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

You aren't convinced of the flight path?  Oh let me guess...  the RADAR data was faked too?

No, you are jumping to conclusions.  There were simply other planes in the area (as reported by eyewitnesses).  And with the transponders off and potential for deception that day, I don’t think we can be sure which aircraft is which, or even which was shot down.  The official investigation really needed to get a physical ID on all of the aircraft involved.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

Prove it.

Already done, complete with links in my previous post.

Here it is again: post #1999 (the link isn’t working properly, but go back a page from there).

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

Everything corroborates the passenger revolt.  Everything.

So you say, but once again fail to provide anything other than the reason I just stated, i.e. you don’t want to believe the aircraft was shot down despite the list of evidence, so you deduce it must have been success of the passenger revolt.  Or rather, you didn’t deduce it yourself at all - no one would deduce that given only the evidence free of media bias - it’s just the propaganda that has been fed to you.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

You are the one avoiding things.  Answer the damn question I posed about why there is no debris north of the debris field.

Already answered – the wind blows the debris in the same direction shoot down or not.  However, there is more likely to be a distant and isolated debris field if the aircraft suffers damage in flight (over a mile up), which is just the conclusion reporters on scene also came to that morning.

[booNyzarC]

Dodge and weave.  Dodge and weave.

Should I take the time to go through this again point by point?  I mean really, you've already ignored the relevant facts and invented your own version based on your own twisted interpretation of events, all the while skipping over anything that doesn't agree with your invention.  It seems to me like there is little point in me even taking the time to keep arguing with you.

I mean seriously.  I asked you to prove it twice.  You quoted one of them (which one?) and then directed me to an old post of yours which is filled with your interpretations instead of irrefutable facts, and that I've responded to already in the very same thread.  Is this just the way you roll Q24?  Sleight of hand?  Obfuscation?  I've given you a lot of credit for a long while.  Was that credit misdirected?

I'll sleep on it for now.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

No it isn't - because if the debris exploded out from the hole in the ground, it would be expected to form a continuous trail, not an isolated debris field miles away.

After PSA 1771 crashed into the ground, debris from the crash site was found up to 8 miles away and it wasn't shot down either..

Quote

Yes it does… and a cover up.

There was no cover-up and there were no missiles fired at United 93.

Quote

You cannot deny the evidence.

Of course not because the evidence proved there was no government cover-up.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

There is nothing to back-up that the passenger revolt was actually a success.

Apparently it was because United 93 never reached its target.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 18 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

ATC have stated fighters circled Flight 93 to stay in contact.  The pilot of the E-3 Sentry accompanying fighters stated he had the order to shootdown and was literally about to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed (of course that's what he will say – they are covering up the shootdown)!

Did the C-130 pilot who saw the smoke plum from the crash site of United 93,  report F-16s circling over the crash site?  For us all, answer the quiestion.

[quillius]

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Nor would I hold it against the government if it shot down 1 or 2 of the airliners.  It would be a good decision, considering the events of the day.

If you understood how the US Witness Protection Program works, the possibility of such a program being used might make sense to you. Basically, a person is provided an entire new identity.  In this hypothetical case, the arrangement is mutually beneficial.  In exchange for silence, a person is provided a new identity and enough money to not have to worry.  A variation on the theme of 'hush money.'

My theory is that all the names on the passenger and crew lists were cooperating individuals, but of course that is just a theory. From a practical perspective, I don't see how some could be cooperating and some not, unless those not cooperating were killed.

Sorry BR, I think you need to drop the suggestion of passengers willing to accept hush money.

Using the example you put forward on the US witness protection programme...there is a major difference! Using your example this would be the equivalent of the 'gangsters' getting hold of a witness and offering them money to keep quiet rather than killing them to hush them up.....

The options we have are : it happened as the official story goes, or the Government shot plane down, the third option of passengers being given money to keep quiet and never seeing loved ones again whilst covering the crime of the century is a disgusting thought and one that we do not need to entertain unless there is any evidence to suggest it..and even then logic would still be quite a force against it.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

I mean seriously.  I asked you to prove it twice.  You quoted one of them (which one?)

The post linked addressed both points – the USAF presence and explosion on the plane.  I can put the information in front of you in black and white but can’t help if you refuse to read/see it.  The evidence is in that post, the facts are on record – your cry that I “prove” their existence is pitiful.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

After PSA 1771 crashed into the ground, debris from the crash site was found up to 8 miles away and it wasn't shot down either..

Sure, but it does not appear the Flight 93 smoke plume carried debris to an isolated field 6 miles away.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

There was no cover-up and there were no missiles fired at United 93.

The fighters were there as confirmed by the AWACS pilot, ATC and eyewitnesses, armed with missiles and guns as confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, and a Vietnam War veteran on scene described hearing a missile.

Can you guess what I think of your hollow opinion compared to that?

[Dis Pater]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

The post linked addressed both points – the USAF presence and explosion on the plane.  I can put the information in front of you in black and white but can't help if you refuse to read/see it.  The evidence is in that post, the facts are on record – your cry that I "prove" their existence is pitiful.



Sure, but it does not appear the Flight 93 smoke plume carried debris to an isolated field 6 miles away.



The fighters were there as confirmed by the AWACS pilot, ATC and eyewitnesses, armed with missiles and guns as confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, and a Vietnam War veteran on scene described hearing a missile.

Can you guess what I think of your hollow opinion compared to that?

Sorry to butt in Q but could i pick at your knowledge on this point...?- Am i right in thinking that 5 F-16's were scrambled on that day  - 3 from Langley which were armed(and went to protect Washington with orders of AFIO)and 2 from the 121st Fighter Squadron Air National Guard that were not armed(and went after UA93).?

If i have that right(which would be a rare event in itself),could i ask you which you think shot down UA93-the three from Langley?...or some completely different planes?


.
Ignore me if im being a complete clot..

[Q24]

Dis Pater, on 19 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Sorry to butt in Q but could i pick at your knowledge on this point...?- Am i right in thinking that 5 F-16's were scrambled on that day  - 3 from Langley which were armed(and went to protect Washington with orders of AFIO)and 2 from the 121st Fighter Squadron Air National Guard that were not armed(and went after UA93).?

I recall two fighters from Otis that provided cover over New York and remained there the rest of the morning and two fighters from Andrews (the 121st you refer to) which scrambled at a later time only after the action was over (after Flight 93 was down).

It is the Langley fighters that are interesting – armed and within range/time of the Flight 93 crash site and with orders to prevent that aircraft reaching Washington where it were headed.  There were actually four fighters stationed at Langley… though the official response only talks about three.  The line is that the fourth fighter was sent to taxi some OEM director to New York (because that’s what F-16s do when America and the Capitol are under attack and some suit can’t be bothered to use the telephone… taxi service... yeah).

So that would make at least 8 fighters in the air by late morning, plus an assortment of other military aircraft.

Dis Pater, on 19 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

If i have that right(which would be a rare event in itself),could i ask you which you think shot down UA93-the three from Langley?...or some completely different planes?

I cannot confirm but most likely one of the fighters from Langley.

Retired Army Colonel, Donn de Grand-Pre, has stated on record that Flight 93 was shot down by the fighters from Langley and personally knows the pilot but would not name names.  There are many who believe the trail leads back to the fourth fighter above piloted by Major Rick Gibney – perhaps interesting that he has declined to comment whereas a number of the other fighter pilots have spoken.

I’m open to possibilities – it could have been another off the record - though not gullible enough to accept, with nothing other than a propaganda story to back it up, this idea the passenger revolt beat the USAF to it ‘just in the nick of time’ as the plane approached Washington and armed fighters came in range with an order to stop it.

[Dis Pater]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I recall two fighters from Otis that provided cover over New York and remained there the rest of the morning and two fighters from Andrews (the 121st you refer to) which scrambled at a later time only after the action was over (after Flight 93 was down).

It is the Langley fighters that are interesting – armed and within range/time of the Flight 93 crash site and with orders to prevent that aircraft reaching Washington where it were headed.  There were actually four fighters stationed at Langley… though the official response only talks about three.  The line is that the fourth fighter was sent to taxi some OEM director to New York (because that's what F-16s do when America and the Capitol are under attack and some suit can't be bothered to use the telephone… taxi service... yeah).

So that would make at least 8 fighters in the air by late morning, plus an assortment of other military aircraft.



I cannot confirm but most likely one of the fighters from Langley.

Retired Army Colonel, Donn de Grand-Pre, has stated on record that Flight 93 was shot down by the fighters from Langley and personally knows the pilot but would not name names.  There are many who believe the trail leads back to the fourth fighter above piloted by Major Rick Gibney – perhaps interesting that he has declined to comment whereas a number of the other fighter pilots have spoken.

I'm open to possibilities – it could have been another off the record - though not gullible enough to accept, with nothing other than a propaganda story to back it up, this idea the passenger revolt beat the USAF to it 'just in the nick of time' as the plane approached Washington and armed fighters came in range with an order to stop it.

Thanks Q that clears up quite a bit for me.I kept reading reports of the planes from the 121st being only able to 'nudge' UA93 if they were to meet it,which did seem to be a bit strange-even more so when i read later about the Langley    F-16s being armed and protecting Washington.They they would  have been the perfect response to the threat  UA93 posed when you consider the events of that morning-all of which had occurred well before the UA93 threat.

I shall go and check up on all those names in your reply to try and get a better hang on it all... and once again thanks for the info Q.

Edited by Dis Pater, 19 April 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[bee]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

It is the Langley fighters that are interesting – armed and within range/time of the Flight 93 crash site and with orders to prevent that aircraft reaching Washington where it were headed.  

But WAS it headed for Washington?


In this interview Bill Ryan speaks with 'Elizabeth Neslon' (pseudonym)...who says she was present when the
orders to shoot down Flight 93 were made.

At the end of Part Two (approx 6:40) she says that the plane was in a no fly zone near to Camp David and was heading to site R.

In the third part there is more info about Site R...which turns out to be The Raven Rock Mountain Complex...

which 'Elizabeth Nelson' says is an underground city under a site in Pennsylvania, completely isolated and

fully secure.

She also reads out some info about the Raven Rock facility that Bill Ryan had found in the Public Domain

where it is described, amongst other things, as an underground Pentagon...


(Bill Ryan has bought into the Inside Job Conspiracy and there is a bit of discussion about this dotted through

the interview...but basically this whistleblower (if you chose to believe her claims...and she seems pretty

sincere to me)...talks about the protocol for the no fly zone and that any plane in it that couldn't be contacted

had to be taken down. She was bothered by the claims of a passenger revolt causing it to crash as she said she

knew that this wasn't the truth and that it had been shot down. She didn't think it was right to make up the

passenger revolt story and it bothered her.


anyway here is the interview...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8RZ4UzlKvg&feature=relmfu


other parts






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z87Jmp7VDQ&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt02pNfyXvI&feature=relmfu


IMO it is well worth the time for anyone interested in the Flight 93 'mystery'


.

[Babe Ruth]

I can't believe Q & Boo are using the photo of the 'plume' as proof of anything at all.  If anything, it proves staged events, because that plume IS NOT the plume of a fueled 757 burning.

That plume was staged.  If it were the quantity of jetfuel required by a 757 it would be huge billowing black smoke.

[Babe Ruth]

Quillius

I'm sure we agree that no matter WHO the conspirators actually were, the events of the day were planned.  Whether by 19 arabs with box cutters, or some other parties, the events of the day were planned.

IF the other parties were rogue government agents or military types, CIA or foreign, then the planning was meticulous.

IF that, THEN the passengers were cooperating individuals.  They were not bought off after the fact, no.  They knew what the story was going to be, and they agreed to participate in exchange for financial gain.

I hold that theory because investigations have revealed that the surviving family members of the passengers DO NOT LIKE TO TALK.  They avoid talking to private investigators, and they do not return phone calls.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 19 April 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I must say, I have wondered about that picture as well. How long after the crash was that supposed to be? I can't help thinking that a 757 with a consierable fuel load aboard hitting the ground at the speed claimed would make rather more than that little puff of smoke, I can't help thinking.