3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 19 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Where were I coming from/going?

It was very clear when you posted the following messages, where you were coming from.

Insaniac, on 03 November 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

Anybody with any kind of power has a connection to the Government in this system of things.
CIA, FBI, Police (who have become nothing but Government thugs), corrupt authority in the Courts, Military, Presidents bought and paid for, Politicians are all Government assw**es, False Religion has ties to Politics, I think, Mainstream Media is owned by Government, etc.

Hence, you have a conspiracy. These people used their resources to cover up their crimes.

That seems easy enough to understand.

Insaniac, on 03 November 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

9/11 was just another conspiracy, and it's more or less been proven.

Insaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

I don't take anything the Government states as truth. I know better than to ignorantly assume or blindly believe. Sorry.

Insaniac, on 06 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

What makes you think the Government is more likely to tell you the truth than the average witness or civillian?
If anybody has a reason to harbor an agenda, it's the Government. They are in control of everything, and can use their resources for either good or evil.

Insaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

People still covering up the corruption, I see?

Insaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

Judging from what posted above, the following message wasn't aimed at 9/11 conspiracist.

Insaniac, on 17 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

You can tell the same lie a thousand times, but it never gets anymore true.

Which indicated where you were going.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 December 2012 - 02:52 AM.

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 19 December 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

It was very clear when you posted the following messages, where you were coming from. Which indicated where you were going.

^ ^

Lets hope the truth surfaces.


Edit: Typo.

Edited by Insaniac, 19 December 2012 - 04:12 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 19 December 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

^ ^

Lets hope the truth surfaces.


Edit: Typo.

The evidence supports the official story. There is no evidence that explosives were used and no evidence the 9/11 aircraft were modified to carry out a false flag operation. The flight profiles are not indicative of what one would expect from professional military pilots and such aircraft modifications could have been easily traced had they been performed. Only a certain number of B-767s and B-757s were built and it would just be a matter of accounting for the aircraft still flying and those that are not, and flight and maintenance histories of the aircraft in question can be reviewed in detail as well. Remember, the Boeing Aircraft company, engine manufactures, and airlines possess their own set of records. The engines can be traced because each engine has its own ID number and flight and maintence records are unique to individual engines which is the case with the airframe.

Taking the long road home, it is just a matter of calling upon the process of elimination to determine the identity of an aircraft, so using modified aircraft the size of a B-757 or B-767  in a false flag operation is not a good idea if you don't want to get caught.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 19 December 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

^ ^

Lets hope the truth surfaces.


Edit: Typo.

Not sure why you came back into this thread posting a useless one liner and not even furthering the discussion.....

perhaps boredom.

[Q24]

Quote

Claims Surrounding a F-16 Pilot and United 93

Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93.

"I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Another in the long list of poor Popular Mechanics 'debunking'.  The shootdown of Flight 93 does not clash with the F-16 taxiing of Jacoby to New York which occurred later in the morning.  There was sufficient time for that F-16 to shootdown Flight 93 and relocate to collect Jacoby (I can dig out the sources if needed).  It is exactly the order I'd give to get the plane out of the Flight 93 shootdown zone and provide plausible deniability through the likes of Jacoby.  Though that is just a possibility - there was more than one fighter up there after Flight 93.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 December 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

Another in the long list of poor Popular Mechanics 'debunking'.

That doesn't work!   I can find other sources that are singing in harmony to the same tune. In fact, the communication transcript provides evidence the military was unaware of the location of United 93 and unaware that United 93 had crashed until notified by ATC controllers. President Bush granted commanders the authority to order pilots to shoot down the airliners, which didn't come until 10:18, but United 93 crashed at 10:03 AM.

Quote

The shootdown of Flight 93 does not clash with the F-16 taxiing of Jacoby to New York which occurred later in the morning.

There is no evidence of a shoot down and never was. If you still don't believe me just call the folks at Langley AFB and Andrews AFB. To prove my point, provide your evidence for all to see. I don't deal in speculation and far too many 9/11 conspiracist harbor the idea that Hollywood actions movies can be applied to the 9/11 attacks. In other words, they deal in fantasy, not facts.

10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Quote

F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.  

http://www.washingto...cODK_story.html   

The F-16s out Andrew AFB were not even armed and the F-16s from Langley AFB were nowhere near United 93.

Quote

There was sufficient time for that F-16 to shootdown Flight 93 and relocate to collect Jacoby (I can dig out the sources if needed).

Go right ahead and post your sources and if you do, I have sources to provide as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[Q24]

Skyeagle, I would respond more thoroughly but it is apparent that you are a complete moron or otherwise out to troll and it’s impossible to have a rationale discussion with you.  All you do is drag down every thread (and board, from what I hear) with repetitive denial and avoidance of facts and disrupt flow of the discussion, it’s ridiculous and I don’t know why it is allowed to continue.  I was pointing out error of the Popular Mechanics debunking – the fact that Gibney did not taxi Jacoby to New York until later in the morning after Flight 93 was down in Pennsylvania, i.e. Gibney’s presence at either location is not necessarily exclusive to the other.  Not a single thing you posted is actually focussed on that point, and your raising of the unarmed fighters as an argument, ignoring those that were armed, is utter baloney.  What sort of idiotic argument is that?  Anyhow, try to address the point next time instead of spinning off on a tangent.  Though I doubt you even understand what I’m saying now, do you?  Hello, Earth to skyeagle?  Anyone there?  No, didn’t think so.

Just one other thing, because I shouldn’t miss an opportunity: -

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

There is no evidence of a shoot down and never was.

There is a significant body of corroborating evidence from NORAD, ATC, emergency dispatchers, the USAF, mainstream media, eyewitnesses and even the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that suggest a shoot down took place.  To say there is “no evidence” is absolutely ignorant and/or deceptive.  Such is the evidence that even many who generally accept the official story of 9/11 question whether a shoot down of Flight 93 may have occurred – it is palatable to them as it does not auto-imply an ‘inside job’ after all.  Please see my post #1997 & #1999 for summary of the information and sources : -

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

Again, try to focus on and address the points raised rather than spamming and confusing every thread with spiel and irrelevant tangents in response.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Skyeagle, I would respond more thoroughly but it is apparent that you are a complete moron or otherwise out to troll and it’s impossible to have a rationale discussion with you.

Let's face it. Reality of the evidence is not with you.

Quote

I was pointing out error of the Popular Mechanics debunking – the fact that Gibney did not taxi Jacoby to New York until later in the morning after Flight 93 was down in Pennsylvania, i.e. Gibney’s presence at either location is not necessarily exclusive to the other.  Not a single thing you posted is actually focussed on that point, and your raising of the unarmed fighters as an argument, ignoring those that were armed, is utter baloney.

I focused on certain points for a very good reason. There was no way that F-16 flew near United 93, and furthermore, the military did not receive an order to shoot down any airliner until after United 93 had crashed, which throws cold water of such claims because no pilot received the authority to shoot down any aircraft before all four airliners were destroyed. In addition, radar did not detect any F-16s in the area nor near United 93 and the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed,which was evident in the released communication tape, so what is all of this hoppla about United 93 being shot down? They were to establish CAP over Washington, which is not anywhere near Shanksville.

To recap, you implied the F-16 could have made it to United 93 yet there was no order given to shoot down any aircraft before United 93 crashed, which simply means that up to that time no pilot had the authority to shoot down anything that was related to the hijacked airliners.

Quote

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Let's hear from the F-16 pilot.



Nothing there about his F-16 shooting down anything. You were simply duped by those conspiracy websites into thinking there was a possibility he could have shot down United 93. What it is, you create conspiracies from disinformation and misinformation and when I see you doing so, I respond the way I do.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[Q24]

Skyeagle, if you took your head from your rear end and actually clicked the link I provided in my last post (perhaps, God forbid, take on the information within) then you might realise the extensive and continual mistakes that you are making and the falsities that you are spreading.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

There was no way that F-16 flew near United 93,

Wrong

The Langley fighters were certainly in range to intercept Flight 93 prior to the shootdown and that was indeed NORAD’s intention – you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.  There is also potential for Gibney to have reached the crash zone prior to taxiing Jacoby to New York.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

the military did not receive an order to shoot down any airliner until after United 93 had crashed,

Wrong

What you are actually referring to is that fact that none of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld provided shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down.  But the fact is that Major General Arnold of NORAD had made the decision that Flight 93 would not be allowed to reach Washington, had discussed shootdown options and USAF pilot Anthony Kuczynski would report that he held shootdown orders on his way to intercept Flight 93 - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

The 9/11 Commission report discusses the issue: -

"It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.  NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93 [in lieu of a shootdown order from higher up the chain]."

Given NORAD’s potential ability to act alone upon initiative of their own commanders, the fact that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld did not provide shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down is irrelevant.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

radar did not detect any F-16s in the area nor near United 93

Wrong

ATC comments indicate that F-16s were in the area - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed,

Wrong

The record indicates that it took 9 minutes for one chain of command within NORAD, of which there were multiple chains of command directing fighters, to receive confirmation that Flight 93 was down.  This does not constitute “the military” as a whole and does not preclude that other chains of command were involved in and aware of a shootdown as it occurred.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

They were to establish CAP over Washington, which is not anywhere near Shanksville.

Wrong

The Flight 93 crash location was a brief approximately 10 minutes flight time from Washington (which rubbishes your claim here and further above that F-16s were “not anywhere near” Flight 93) - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.  Whilst CAP was established to protect Washington, NORAD’s intention was to stop Flight 93 before it got there, not allow the threat to get over the capital only then moving to intercept.  The threat was already within such proximity that it was now or never for NORAD.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Let's hear from the F-16 pilot.

This doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know.  Or, do you mean, you are waiting for the pilots to confirm that one of them took the shot?  And you don’t see the problem with that?  Oh dear.

skyeagle409, on 20 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

You were simply duped by those conspiracy websites into thinking there was a possibility he could have shot down United 93. What it is, you create conspiracies from disinformation and misinformation and when I see you doing so, I respond the way I do.

Wrong

Seriously, take your head out of your ass.  None of this is based on ‘conspiracy websites’.  It’s just plain fact that you are too ignorant and/or deceptive, to yourself and those around you, to take onboard.  You really need to readjust your views to accept reality (if that’s possible for you) because your current position is an embarrassment of ignorance for which you should be ashamed - you are wrong over and over when it comes to the basic facts.  You respond the way you do because you are too blissfully ignorant to take onboard additional information or learn beyond what you think you know.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Skyeagle, if you took your head from your rear end and actually clicked the link I provided in my last post (perhaps, God forbid, take on the information within) then you might realise the extensive and continual mistakes that you are making and the falsities that you are spreading.

The mistakes are on your part.

Quote

Wrong

The Langley fighters were certainly in range to intercept Flight 93 prior to the shootdown and that was indeed NORAD’s intention – you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.  There is also potential for Gibney to have reached the crash zone prior to taxiing Jacoby to New York.

Right

The Langley fighters were not in range. What is the range of a Sidewider missile? Please post for all to see; if not, then you have no case.

Quote

Wrong

What you are actually referring to is that fact that none of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld provided shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down.

Right

Since when does anyone, other than the President of the United States, have the authority to order the shootdown of airlners? As it was, President Bush issued the order ONLY after United 93 had crashed; in other words, there was no standing order to shoot down airliners before the  United 93 crashed near Shanksville.

Quote

But the fact is that Major General Arnold of NORAD had made the decision that Flight 93 would not be allowed to reach Washington,...

What have I said about an air defense CAP over Washington D.C., which is nowhere near Shanksville?  

Quote

...had discussed shootdown options and USAF pilot Anthony Kuczynski would report that he held shootdown orders on his way to intercept Flight 93 - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

Right

The F-16s would not have left their  CAP over Washington, D.C. to shoot down an airliner over Shanksville. What is the purpose of a CAP? In addition, no one other than the President of the United States has the authority of order fighters to shoot down airliners within the borders of the United States. The president can pass down the order, but not the other way around.

As I have said before, the order from President Bush did not come until after United 93 had crashed; in other words, there was no standing order to shoot down any airliner before all four airliners had crashed.

Quote

The 9/11 Commission report discusses the issue: -

"It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.  NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93 [in lieu of a shootdown order from higher up the chain]."

Once again, you are ignoring the facts that were handed to you on a silver platter. Other than the fact the order was not passed down until after United 93 had crashed, the military did not know of the whereabouts of United 93 until it was told it crashed. In other words, the communication tape shows the militlary was unaware of the current status of United 93 until it was told by civilian ATC controllers that United 93 had crashed. In other words, the military was not in a position to direct any interceptors toward United 93.

Quote

Given NORAD’s potential ability to act alone upon initiative of their own commanders, the fact that Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld did not provide shootdown authority until after Flight 93 was down is irrelevant.

It is relevant! Check it out.

Quote

10:10  Having no knowledge either that United 93 had been heading toward Washington, D.C., or that it had crashed, the NEADS Mission Crew Commander explicitly instructed that the Langley Air Force Base fighters that had been deployed did not have "clearance to shoot" aircraft over the nation's capital.

So where did you get the idea that interceptors had the authority to shoot down airliners before United 93 crashed?

Quote

Wrong

ATC comments indicate that F-16s were in the area - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information.

Right


Check it out.

Quote

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.
NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
FAA: Yeah, he's down.
NEADS: He's down?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...
FAA: He did not land.
NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?
FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.
FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes. The flight had already crashed by the time they learned it was hijacked.

10:17 Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.

Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=1962910

So once again, it has been shown the military was unaware that United 93 had crashed until after the fact and not in a position to direct any aircraft toward United 93 because of lack of information.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Wrong

The record indicates that it took 9 minutes for one chain of command within NORAD, of which there were multiple chains of command directing fighters, to receive confirmation that Flight 93 was down.  This does not constitute “the military” as a whole and does not preclude that other chains of command were involved in and aware of a shootdown as it occurred.

Right

Let's take a second look at the communication transcript.

Quote

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.
NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
FAA: Yeah, he's down.
NEADS: He's down?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...
FAA: He did not land.
NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?
FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.
FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

So once again, the millitary was unaware that United 93 had crashed. In other words, there was no shootdown of United 93 by the military.

Quote

Wrong

The Flight 93 crash location was a brief approximately 10 minutes flight time from Washington...

Once again, how far is Washington D.C. from Shanksville? You must know that F-16s are not going to fly all the way to Shanksville in full afterburner while flying CAP over the Capitol.

Quote

...
(which rubbishes your claim here and further above that F-16s were “not anywhere near” Flight 93) - you would have known this had you clicked the link and taken onboard the information...

The closest aircraft to United 93 when it crashed as American 1060, which confirmed the crash site.

Quote

Whilst CAP was established to protect Washington, NORAD’s intention was to stop Flight 93 before it got there,...

The magic words: "before it got there." In other words, the F-16s would not have left CAP over Washington D.C. to fly all the way to Shanksville to shoot down United 93, but how could they when they were unaware of the fact that United 93 had crashed?

10:32 AM0 minute, 41 seconds

Mission Crew Commander (M.C.C.) gives the fighter pilots permission to shoot down civilian planes

Quote

...not allow the threat to get over the capital only then moving to intercept.  The threat was already within such proximity that it was now or never for NORAD.

A CAP is flown over the local Washington area, which did not include Shanksville.


Combat air patrol (CAP) is a type of flying mission for fighter aircraft.




Two F-15 Eagles from the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 102nd Fighter Wing fly a combat air patrol mission over New York City in support of Operation Noble Eagle

A combat air patrol is an aircraft patrol provided over an objective area, over the force protected, over the critical area of a combat zone, or over an air defense area, for the purpose of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft before they reach their target. Combat air patrols apply to both overland and overwater operations, protecting other aircraft, fixed and mobile sites on land, or ships at sea.

Known by the acronym CAP, it typically entails fighters flying a tactical pattern around or screening a defended target, while looking for incoming attackers. Effective CAP patterns may include aircraft positioned at both high and low altitudes, in order to shorten response times when an attack is detected. Modern CAPs are either GCI or AWACS-controlled to provide maximum early warning for defensive reaction.

The first CAPs were characteristic of aircraft carrier operations, where CAPs were flown to protect a carrier battle group, but the term has become generic to both Air Force and Navy flight operations. Capping operations differ from fighter escorts in that the CAP force is not tied to the group it is protecting, is not limited in altitudes and speeds it flies, and has tactical flexibility to engage a threat. Fighter escorts typically stay with the asset they are supporting and at the speed of the supported group, as a final reactive force against a close threat.

When an escort engages, the supported force is left unprotected.

http://en.wikipedia....mbat_air_patrol

The CAP was to be established over Washington, D.C., not over Shanksville. Fighters flying CAP over Washington, D.C. would not have taken action to intercept an airliner over Shanksville. How far is Shanksville from Washington D.C.?  

Quote

This doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know.  Or, do you mean, you are waiting for the pilots to confirm that one of them took the shot?

A shot at what? The communication transcript shows the military was unaware of the fact that United 93 had crashed; In other words, the miliary was not trackng nor knew of the precise whereabouts of United 93 to provide the proper coordinates to the interceptors, but as it was, the shootdown order was not issued until after United 93 had crashed.

Quote

Wrong

Seriously, take your head out of your ass.  None of this is based on ‘conspiracy websites’.  It’s just plain fact that you are too ignorant and/or deceptive, to yourself and those around you, to take onboard.  You really need to readjust your views to accept reality (if that’s possible for you) because your current position is an embarrassment of ignorance for which you should be ashamed - you are wrong over and over when it comes to the basic facts.  You respond the way you do because you are too blissfully ignorant to take onboard additional information or learn beyond what you think you know.

Right

And, I will reiterate what I have said. You were duped and your own post is that proof because you are unaware of the way things work in the real world of miliary and civilian aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

You now have 2 feet in Sky.  Are you going for 3?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 December 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

You now have 2 feet in Sky.  Are you going for 3?

Apparently, Q24, was unaware that the order to shoot down airliners was issued, not from Rumsfeld nor from the vice president, but issued by President Bush. The order was issued AFTER United 93 crashed and no one had the authority to shoot down airliners before the crash of United 93, which was the last airliner to crash.

The order was the result of a presidential-level decision and neither Vice President Cheney nor Secretary of Defense Rumfeld had the authority to issue that order over the head of the president.

It was all very simple to understand but there are those who like to concoct conspiracies from the book cover without reading the rest of the story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

There is a significant body of corroborating evidence from NORAD, ATC, emergency dispatchers, the USAF, mainstream media, eyewitnesses and even the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that suggest a shoot down took place.  

Think again!

Quote

At 9:36, FAA Cleveland called FAA Command Center at Herndon to ask whether the military had been notified - FAA Command Center told Cleveland that "FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command had to make the decision to seek military assistance and were working on the issue". At 9:49, the decision about whether to call the military had still not been made, and no one from the FAA did call them until 10:07, four minutes after Flight 93 had crashed near Shanksville, PA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization   before United 93 crashed.


Had Flight 93 made it to DC, National Guard pilots Lt. Col. Marc H. Sasseville and Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney were prepared to ram their unarmed F-16 fighters into it, perhaps giving their lives in the process

http://govinfo.libra...1Report_Ch1.htm

The leaves the question:

Where did 9/11 conspiracist get the idea that United 93 was shot down despite the fact the order wasn't given until after United 93 had crashed near Shanksville, where it was tracked on radar to the location of the crash site and confirmed by other aircraft in the area such as American 1060, and a National Guard, C-130?

As I have said before, there is no room for speculation because specuation is not considered hard evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 December 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 20 December 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

You now have 2 feet in Sky.  Are you going for 3?

Feet?  This guy has his head firmly buried in the ground.

Edited by Q24, 21 December 2012 - 02:01 PM.