Most sources - including pro-CT sites - seem to say the wind was in the direction of the debris field. I've seen some say the wind was in the opposite direction, but this seems to have been an initial misunderstanding that about 'north-westerly' wind. This means it's FROM the northwest, so actually blows southeast. That said, I have tried to hunt down any original sources i.e. archived weather pages and haven't managed to find any to double check.

I'm not sure how the shoot down is more strongly supported by the debris field anyway. The plane was travelling in a southeast direction when it crashed and the lake is to the southeast of the crash site. If the debris came from the impact then it goes up a few hundred feet maybe, gets blown southeast and lands in/by the lake. If it breaches in flight then the debris would have left the aircraft at a much further altitude and had to travel a much further distance before landing. To me that would have left a much broader range of debris than it happening from the impact.


The plane impacted with quite a big explosion that could have blown light debris high into air and the majority of it could fall in a similar place. Some of it could have fallen in a trail, but later been blown slowly into the lake (it's not like anyone was actively looking for a trail and quite a bit of material was pulled out the lake the next day). I'm not saying this is a cast-iron explanation, but it is plausible. Your questions about a trail are reasonable, but frankly they apply equally (if not more) to your idea of a mid-air break up (I would expect a plane travelling at 500mph in the air to leave a trail of debris).


On this, like so many other things to do with United 93 there are quite a few conflicting stories. You point out the supervisor saw smoke mentioned in a transcript of the call, yet the guy who took the call and Felt's wife who was played the call say he didn't mention smoke. Even if you say (which I assume you do) that the supervisor was truthful and the guy who took the call and widow are lying there's still plenty of contradiction. Some sources say Felt said he saw smoke coming from the plane, some suggest smoke was in the plane (his call was at the time of the passenger assault - possible sources for bangs and smoke there?). If he was hiding in a toilet how could he have seen smoke coming from the plane? If smoke was coming from the plane why did none of the witnesses on the ground see a trail of smoke? If a missile was used why were bits of engine not found further away?

Please don't try to answer those questions as they were purely rhetorical to show a few of the range of questions that are brought up.

To be honest I find a lot of the United 93 stuff odd. There are so many conflicting reports and it's so difficult to plough your way through out of date information, dead links, personal opinion etc to get to original sources that I find it hard to come to any strong opinion. I lean towards the official story being mostly true (but with quite a few questions outstanding), mostly because there is no consistent CT that doesn't throw up more questions than the official theory. Maybe if I find more time to look into this I'll answer my own questions.

It really is simple as - an intact airliner crashing will have one debris field, an airliner partially broken up in flight will have two or more. As with the WTC buildings supposedly being the first high-rise steel framed structures to ever collapse as witnessed without controlled demolition, Flight 93 seems to be the first aircraft to ever crash and leave a secondary debris field.



A trail would only be left from the damaged airliner in flight if it gave out a steady stream of debris. Obviously the damaged sections and anything sucked out in the case of the fuselage being breached would fall to the ground within moments of each other thus leaving no trail, as in the case of Flight 93.



Yes, why is there all this contradiction? If you wish to dispute Cramer’s account, you would need to explain why on Earth he would give a false version of events - I could explain why the versions from the FBI and John Shaw are different. For sure, the contradictions of events generally take place after ‘official’ elements have become involved: -

Eyewitnesses see military plane…
…FBI arrives…
…there are only civilian aircraft, oh and don’t talk about it please.

Air traffic controller says F-16 must have seen the whole thing…
… FBI gag order…
… no military planes there.

911 supervisor says the passenger reported smoke and an explosion…
… FBI confiscate the tape…
… this was not said.

First impressions are of the secondary field being unusual…
… official story covers it…
… all is to be expected.

Rumsfeld states plane shotdown…
… official release…
… just a misspeak.

The sheer suppression of information and gag orders on anyone in contact with the flights is in itself highly suggestive of a truer story being withheld from public view.



On the contrary, the ‘conspiracy theory’ can answer every single question thrown at it, whilst the official line is shot to pieces on practically every point.

Sorry, could you clarify what you think happened? The plane was travelling in a southeasterly direction as was the wind, the debris was found past the crash site in the direction the plane was travelling. Are you suggesting the plane breached in mid air, blew out all the loose debris in one chunk, the plane carried on and crashed whilst the debris floated down, past the crash site and onto the lake a few miles away without producing a trail either?

To clarify, the secondary debris field would indicate the airliner was travelling from an easterly direction. This is corroborated by a number of eyewitnesses: -

• Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash.
  
  
• At the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing” that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Before I had researched the bearings of the secondary debris field and direction eyewitnesses say the plane came from, I already had a theory that the airliner perhaps was flying from the east – it made sense in the context of my overall Flight 93 theory – and the above things confirm it.

As the planes at the WTC site were not those assumed, so is the same true for Flight 93. An aircraft was certainly tracked on radar across Pennsylvania… though a decoy – not the one that crashed. Everybody knows the flightpaths of what were the supposedly the official airliners but the truth and the answer to where all the passengers went people so often ask is below (yellow lines to state the obvious): -



The above ties up the loose ends of where the original flights went and, once you realise 9/11 was an inside job, it explains the whole purpose of Flight 93. The theory fits with and can account for all evidence whilst being achievable within the time frames.

Eyewitnesses?! Have you read the sources you posted? Val McClatchey HEARD a plane. She didn’t see anything clearly – all she saw was a glimpse ‘like light off a watch face’ and in the same article she said she thought it was a small plane. Your Indian Lake witness again HEARD a plane – they didn’t see anything.

You want eyewitnesses to the crash and the plane’s direction how about Terry Butler or Kelly Leverknight here. Or Tim Thornsberg or Charles Sturtz here. Or Viola Saylor here (note that this link is the exact same link that you posted as evidence as flying in the opposite direction).
All of these people (and quite a few others you can find if have a quick google) who did actually see the plane all agree it was headed towards the lake not from the lake.

The official story says there was also a Falcon 20 in the local area at the time. The various conspiracy theories suggest there could have been who knows how many other ‘military’ planes in the area. Yet you seem to discount the possibility that this could be the source of the lake noise.
The fact that you’re happy to discount any ‘official’ radar and flight path information with stories of decoy planes or ATC lies or FBI cover-ups does not surprise me. But the way you seem choose a couple of people hearing something (that has possible other sources), over a much larger group of people who all actually saw the plane heading in the opposite direction just because it fits in better with your pet theory does surprise me.

Or are you suggesting United 93 flew over the lake, took a missile strike and / or had a fuselage breach blowing debris out, flew past the crash site then turned 180 degrees to head back in the opposite direction so the eyewitness could have see it finally crash? All that would take a while and would have to be done at a reasonable altitude so nobody saw the change in direction and to give the debris time to land after the impact, which would raise questions about why the debris wasn’t more spread out / more in a trail too.

Or are you suggesting the eyewitnesses saw your decoy plane and the real plane did come from the east (if so where did the decoy plane go, why did no one see it, why would the real plane have to be shot down etc).

Could you clarify exactly what you think happened?

Bumping my way in...For what it's worth i feel the crash site showed no real evidance of a crashed plane at all. The lack of any bodies is a big giveaway, plus the plane it self just vapourised did it?
Then theres the famous photograph of the smoke tower from the crash scene, taken just off to the east or something, it goes straight up, and is only one ball of smoke? shouldn't there have been three or four balls of smoke across a wider area or something?

I've seen alot of plane crashes in the news in my 45 years. and 99%; til now the plane is somewhat intact...this thing is shredded...id have to say the plane was shot down or blown up from the looks of the debris...

The plane did not vapourise. There pictures of the debris and plenty of statements discussing airplane and human remains being found. Links for this are throughout this thread and pretty easy to find if you google for it.

Thanks for exlaining the obvious to me bud, i have read the previous posts.

http://i3.tinypic.com/8ab9hdy.jpg

http://i17.tinypic.com/6kubv5c.jpg

Note the lack of any real crash scene items, only small and odd items scattered about, just like the pentagon images that the world got to see?

ITS TO CLEAN A CRIME SCENE FOR MY LIKING

An observation of note regarding the above image of the smoke plume belial posted – there does not appear to be a blowing from the wind at all does there? Does it really look like that explosion and non-apparent wind could move debris approximately 2 miles to the secondary debris site?


I do not know what else the ear(?)witnesses could be describing other than an aircraft moving very fast.



Being a relatively small passenger aircraft, I cannot imagine a Falcon 20 flying low or fast enough to make a screaming sound described as like a missile. Military planes could be a possibility, though that accepts their presence in the immediate vicinity of Flight 93. I still find it most likely it was Flight 93 which flew over Indian Lake, when fit with the secondary debris field, taking into account the witnesses and what is a logical purpose for the flight.



My theory does not discount radar information, imply airtraffic controllers are lying or that the FBI covered-up in this case – they did indeed track an airliner they believed to be Flight 93 as set out in the official flight path.



No, it would be unlikely for the airliner to continue flying and achieve a 180^o turn after its engine had been damaged. Incidentally, rather than a missile, I would think it more likely a 20mm cannon fitted to many US military aircraft would be a more prudent method.


Yes.

From Newark airport, a duplicate Boeing 757 took off at 8:42 a.m. (official said time of Flight 93 departure) and flew the official flight path. Flight 93 with the passengers had taken off at the scheduled time of 8:00 a.m. rendezvousing with Flights 11 & 175. All passengers were moved to Flight 93, flown on and the airliner shotdown when crossing over the path of the duplicate at the crash site in Pennsylvania.

Many people are put off by the ‘duplicate airliner’ theory, though I have previously suggested a number of ways this could be achieved (see quote below - similarly applying to 757 or 767). The actual ‘switch’ of airliners to deceive air traffic control involves only a resetting of the transponder codes from the respective aircraft, ie Flight 93 transmits a military code, the decoy transmits Flight 93’s code. Soon as the crash occurred, the duplicate aircraft transponder code could be switched back to its original.



Whilst fitting with the time frames and context of the wider inside job, this explains not only the location of the secondary debris site, gag of airtraffic controllers and Rumsfelds ‘slip’ but also how both sets of eyewitness accounts can be true.

Theres still the matter of an EIGHTmile long crash site? How many other plane crashes have this sort of crash area? none i bet...
The Lockerbie crash here in the UK was a massive plane crash caused by an on board bomb, plus the impact and the fact that it was a transatlantic flight full of fuel, but still the plane was visible a plane and not a pile of nuts and bolts with the odd token image thrown in.

[Q puts his debunker hat on]

Belial, have you seen these from the Flight 93 crash site?




Back on the first page of the thread, Colbet Nation made this good post with many links, that whilst I do not agree with all the points made, give enough evidence to support an airliner crash.

Yes i have read the post, and re read it just thanks, but it only shows what it shows. I could post numerous images of other crashes from all over the world showing a totally different outcome to the one here, and some of them have been blown up in mid air, this crach site shows me that it was staged or at best a smaller plane, with planted items within it. There is no clear debris showing any wing formations at all or cock pit area, all we have are a few metal fragments - a door - a wheel and lots of paper? As with impact craters from other crash sites theres normally a large portion of aircraft left for the world to see. Families and friends who lost loved ones i am truely sorry.
But pawns will always be lost to a battle or war.

Wow. Just wow.

How you manage to dismiss so many suggested theories as completely unfeasible and then put forward such a Heath Robinson solution as the most simple, logical alternative is truely baffling.

I know, quite shocking is it not - the only version that fits all evidence. There is a famous quote/saying, I am sure you know: -
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Please also take into account the techniques of the Big Lie - a mental block of sorts preventing some from seeing possibilities.

Your quote above is not an answer, only indicative of you being overwhelmed by the version. Feel free to address the specific points when you have time. I was particularly looking forward to your opinion on the smoke plume and apparent lack of wind seen in the picture at the top of this page.

TITLE:

All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off.

-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history...

-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of them. Many of these men and women come from the military yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the governments next mass murder than come out and expose this.

-The courts for imposing a gag rule

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a hand full can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team in structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is the engineers don't know about Jones work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones's work to any structural engineer?

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorist never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorist say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long.



Controlled demolition!!!!!??

No planes?!

Perhaps someone should tell that to Stanley Praimnath who was on the 81st floor of WTC 2.

"What I see is a big plane coming towards me. This plane is coming, eye level towards me. Eye contact. I'm seeing a big gray plane, with a red stripe.

The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway. "


Sorry but I'll listen to the people that were there and actually saw the events occuring with their own eyes over someone who's entire claim is "Everyone else is lying to you." If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon explain how the wreakage got there, this was not a small amount either, it was quite a pile and included passanger luggage as well as pieces of fuselage, seats, glass from windows, the data flight recorders for Flight 77 and engine parts. How come all the passangers and the crew's remains (except for one small girl) were recovered from the Pentagon, or are you going to claim all the rescue services were in on it too?

How many people do you claim are in on this? Let's see so far as I can tell, all the survivors, all of those in Manhatten who saw the planes that morning. All of those in Washington DC that saw them. The check in staff at Logon and Boston who saw and identified the Hijackers (including one girl who commited suicide because of what she considered her part in not stopping them.) Every firefighter, ambulance worker and police officer who attended the three scene, including those that were killed. Every Structural Engineer, half the CT crowd, nearly everyone on boards that actually know what they are talking about.

So what's that? At least a 100,000 people? (probably more.) How exactly do you shut up that many people? You can't pay them all $10 million, that'd be $10 Trillion. The US GDP is only $11 Trillion. So how do you keep them from spilling the beans? How do you stop them taking the money and spilling the beans? By threatening to kill them? If so, what's to stop the same killers coming after you?

Even the conspiracy lovers would have to think -anyone who believes this needs to seek the nearest mental health professional.

Conspiracists in general, and 9/11 conspiracists in particular, will not criticize any claim, no matter how blatantly at odds with reality or with the the other conspiracy stories, as long as it "supports" the overall existence of the conspiracy.

This is because they are interested in lashing out at the perceived power structure, not in discovering any kind of objective truth.


God help anyone ignorant enough to buy into this crap.

I assure you my amazement was related far more to the contradiction in what you’ll accept as proof than the actual story you had come up with.

I have a few questions relating to your story which I would appreciate you answering. For clarity could you say exactly how you think things happened (rather than any ‘it would be easy to do x’). I’m sure you’ve thought a great deal about your story so giving me answers in detail should not be difficult for you.

Flight delay / swap
You say Flight 93 took off on time and a decoy flight took off at the official 0842 time.

• What was this decoy plane? To be a realistic decoy it must be another 757 pained in United Airline colours, which is not a small job – who did this, how many people do you think would have to be involved, were they all in on the conspiracy?
• How did the flight take off on time? Flights were delayed that day due to heavy morning traffic. Newark air traffic control would determine who took off when, planes are given slot times and physically queue in front of each other – they cannot just jump the queue. Were ATC involved in the plot, if so how many people and how were they silenced?
• If ATC were not involved then how did United 93 swap with the decoy? Ground movement of aircraft is tightly controlled. How did the plotters ensure the planes would be near enough on the airfield to ensure they could swap places? If United 93 took the place of the decoy aircraft in the queue so it could take off on time how did the plotters anticipate the delay times? How did the two planes manage to swap places without any other planes in the queue noticing?
• If United 93 really took off on time then it must have done so on a different call sign. Who was flying the plane? Were the real pilots in on the plot? If not why would they have taken off on a different call sign / went a different direction? If they were not in on the plot do you suggest they were attacked and replaced by plotters – presumably before take off and after push back as they were seen entering the aircraft? How was this done without any alarm being raised by passengers / cabin crew?
• Are you suggesting similar plane swaps were performed for flights 11 and 175 so decoys could follow the official flight paths whilst they went off and met up with 93?

In-flight / rendezvous

• If United 93 took off earlier then what did it fly as? Was it as some fake United Airlines route? Was it as some other non-passenger related service? Either way, who do you think would have had to have been involved in setting up this fake flight path to allow it to fly towards your Flight 93/11/175 rendezvous? Were they in on the plot?
• Where is this rendezvous point? It would have to be a large airfield in order for 757 / 767s to land – do you have a specific airport in mind?
• What kind of staffing do you think are involved in the airfield, how many? Are all these ground staff and ATC people there in on the plot? If not why have they never come out that three of the planes met up at their airfield that day and there’s a giant cover-up going on?
• How were the passengers shuffled from 175/11 into 93? Did they do it on their own accord, if so what reason were they given? If so then why did no-one ever mention this in subsequent phone calls? Were they forced at gunpoint or drugged and carried? If so how many people do you think would have to be involved to do that? Were they all in on the plot?
• Why are there no eyewitnesses to these aircraft coming and going from people who live in the area – is this airfield so remote? Was anything done to minimise witnesses?
• How do you explain all the phone calls that were made on all the flights, none of which suggest this mid-flight stop over, change of flight but do mention hijackings? Were these all faked somehow, with their voices being replicated?

Crash

• Was the place where United 93 crashed specifically chosen? If so why there, was there no where better with less potential threats of people seeing the decoy swap happen?
• If the middle point between the two flight paths was randomly chosen then how was this organised?
• Who was flying the real United 93? Were they not aware the plane was due to crash? What would they be told?
• If the idea was for the plane to crash then why would you shoot it down? You’re a believer in remote controlled planes, why not just remote it into the ground? If you’re going with the calls being faked then why fake people trying to take over the plane and then secretly shoot it down?
• If you’re happy with the idea of shooting down a plane then why cover it up at all – why not just admit that it was an executive decision (that is admitted was made) that was carried out?
• If you believe the plane was shot down then how would you ensure you got the decoy right? Shooting down a plane is not an exact science, it could drop out of the sky immediately or carry on for a very long time. The eyewitnesses say they saw you decoy fly overhead and then the explosion. How could you guarantee that timing and not, for example, have eyewitnesses still see the decoy flying towards the impact zone after the explosion? How could you guarantee loads of eyewitnesses not seeing the decoy flying away after the crash? Why did no-one, including the eyewitness who was at the crash site and saw the impact see two identical United 93s?
• Body parts were discovered at the crash site and DNA checking done. How could you guarantee Flight 11 /175 victims were not identified? Are the identification labs also in the conspiracy? How many people would that involve?

I do notice that due to the inability to defend the official line, you are attempting to turn this around by unrealistically expecting me to produce every detail of the inside job. I hope you are not hiding from the question regarding the smoke plume picture belial posted and apparent lack of wind.

Now, saying exactly how the conspiracy version happened, with so many possible permutations of events, is not going to happen. What I can do is give suggestions to your questions. I am well aware there is no direct evidence supporting the alternative version of flight/passenger movements other than knowing the official version cannot be upheld thus different events must have taken place.



See above list of where Boeing aircraft could be obtained for the inside job. It is possible the airliner was previously flying for, or at the time being stored by United Airlines/American Airlines before being purchased or used, in which case a repaint was not required. If the airliner was part of a CIA front company then a long lead time could be given for the repaint.

Flight delays in busy periods were common occurrence so could be accounted for. The decoy would take off at the time of Flight 93’s delayed departure, all the perpetrators needed to ensure is that they had flexibility of their switched aircraft’s takeoff. Do private, military or CIA flights queue in the same ‘slots’ as scheduled civilian flights? I would think they are given priority. Newark International Airport has 3 runways of which one is used primarily for smaller aircraft or when strong crosswinds prevent the use of the other two runways… or perhaps where a more flexible takeoff time is required. Air traffic controllers would not be involved in the plot.

When Flight 93 was cleared to leave its gate and begin queuing, the decoy at that point changed its transponder code and moved into its place. Flight 93 altered its transponder code to that of the decoy private, military or CIA flight and immediately took off. The pilots would have to be in on the plan. Although perhaps unsurprising, it is worth noting some of the pilots were Ex-USAF, Navy and Pentagon employees. Possibility of the CIA placing agents in pilot jobs – 100%

I am suggesting a similar switch occurred for Flights 11 & 175. Logan Airport has twice as many runways as Newark Airport giving a wider chance for the switch and takeoff of alternative aircraft. Of interest here, is the story that Flight 11 had two flight gates – 26 & 32. Was this to assist with the switch plan? Was it to somehow ensure the passengers of Flight 175 boarded Flight 11 or vice versa? Read this article and make up your own mind what was going on - Flight 11 - The Twin Flight.



As above, Flight 93 would have flown as a private, military or CIA flight. Whoever was involved, they were in on the plan and their flight path would not be any business of civilian air traffic control.

Any isolated, military and/or disused airfield in the area between Newark Airport, Logan Airport and Shanksville could be used as the rendezvous point. No civilian air traffic or ground staff would be involved.

Possible method of boarding the passengers onto one flight - “Ladies and gentlemen, due to a minor technical problem with the aircraft, in the interests of passenger safety we will shortly be landing. A detour flight has been arranged for immediate boarding and delay to arrival time is estimated at 20 minutes. Thank you for your understanding.”

A lot could be said about the supposed calls from the flights but keeping things basic: -

• Voice morphing technology was available pre-9/11. See this article When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing from the Washington Post.
• There is no proof where any of the calls originated from.
• Cell Phone Jammers and/or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices could be used to restrict calls from the flights.

To spell it out – it is possible that some of the calls were faked.



The precise location could not be chosen – perhaps Flight 93 was planned to crash into Indian Lake for all I know. The approximate area in Pennsylvania would have been chosen though as it was sparsely populated. The pilot of Flight 93 would be told they were taking part in a hijacking false flag operation though not be aware of the full plan or impending shoot down. You tell me why the shoot down was not admitted to - perhaps there was something to hide?

Flight 93 would be the original United Airlines aircraft thus not having opportunity to fit remote-control.

Flight 93 and the decoy would need to be kept far enough apart so they were not visibly seen together. The decoy would turn off and/or move to a higher altitude upon approaching Flight 93.

Remains, of which 1,500 were said to be recovered from the crash site, were sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland. Perhaps they were in on the plan or perhaps they were looking only to identify the people supposed to be on Flight 93.


You do realise I could come up with an equal number of more pertinent questions for the official story of Flight 93 if I were not keeping specific to the shootdown? Just a response to that smoke plume and lack of wind would be good for now though.

Here is what happened

They dug a ditch put some debri in a bomb type package and blew it off. Thus you have debri scattered around and far distances.

That's what it looks like too.

Firstly, I was not 'hiding' from the smoke plume question. I wanted to find out more about it and I've been on holiday and hadn't had the time. Looking into it the photo was taken very shortly after the explosion and to the east and slightly south of the impact site. This would mean the wind would be blowing towards the photographer, the plume could be angle quite heavily toward the photographer. Frankly, I don't think you can tell either way.

As for my "inability to defend the official line"? I've only discussed one point, whether the debris blowing across to the lake was feasible or not. And I've stated there are plenty of questions and problems with what happened to United 93 both in the conspiracy theories and the official theory. The reason I wanted you to discuss your plan in detail was because it is so easy to come up with any solution at a high-level but it's much harder to justify it at a more detailed level. That's not some kind of 'unrealistic' trick, I just think you made your plan seem so easy when it would be nothing of the sort. I asked so many questions simply because they were questions that sprang immediately to mind that would cause problems to your plan working.

You answered most of my questions, some in a little depth, others brushed over without any consideration, other points you missed. To be honest I think you've not thought about the complexities in great detail and you seem to think a lot of things are very simple to do when they wouldn't be. You've put forward a plan that - in order to work - relies on secret flights, dummy planes, unknown military airbases, phone jamming, voice replication technology, large numbers of stupid or conspiratorial people and uncontrollable reliance on lack of eyewitness on key factors. It's a hugely complex plan with many major risks to exposure that would be difficult to minimise and your entire justification for the plan are quotes from Hitler and Sherlock Holmes.

I've already stated that I think there are a lot of outstanding questions surrounding United 93. But that doesn't make your theory any more right.

That would be quite the coincidence the photo was taken directly facing the wind. If it was the case and the explosion/wind blew debris in that direction I would expect at least a small amount to be raining down on the taker. I do not think anyone looking at that photo objectively could say it looks to be an explosion that could move debris 2 miles away.



Coming from a sceptic, I am going to take the above section as a compliment. What you are basically saying is that whilst explaining the outline of a plan, there are some gaps in the detail – that is all I promised from the start. Perhaps with some tweaking to the plan and elaboration of points, it would work.

I did not mean to suggest that achieving what I propose would be easy. Certainly no average citizen or randomly picked group could make this work. I do though believe elements of the CIA, Mossad and military to be more resourceful than most. This is important to bear in mind, as whilst I am one person trying to understand how the events on 9/11 were achieved and without for instance knowledge of cutting-edge technology or the inside workings of airlines, the actual perpetrators would be infinitely more aware.



No flights would be secret – just because the CIA lay on a flight, it does not mean everyone will know its purpose. Duplicate aircraft – yes, the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought it achievable in 1962. Unknown military bases – only so far as many could have been used, I will suggest the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove in Pennsylvania if you need a specific name. Phone jamming and voice replication – the technology is known to exist. Eyewitnesses and people involved – there would not be a great number.

The quotes I used were only to show that a theory at first seeming incredulous should not automatically be disregarded. There are few who understand the workings of false flag terrorism better than Hitler whilst Sherlock Holmes is generally considered to be an intelligent figure where problem solving skills are called for.



Of course, though you regularly highlight where you believe the alternative theories to fall short rather than those of the official story. I personally believe my theory fits with the wider events of 9/11 better than any other.

No, that really was not what I was saying. I don't think your plan is 'generally ok, but with some outstanding questions', I think it is fundamentally flawed in many ways making the entire plan unrealistic.

When I was amazed by your plan it wasn't because it was 'too big an idea' for me to accept, it's because I could see so many problems with it immediately. Your choice of quotes emphasised that for me. The Sherlock Holmes quote I've always found to be a terrible bit of logic. If A and B are false C must be true. Awful - C may indeed be true and should not be discounted but there could be a D or E, F... or you could have made an error in discounting something in A etc. As for the Big Lie - so what? You like mentioning Northwoods but to me it pretty meaningless. It was high-level plan never played out, all it proves is the government is capable of doing something like 911 to it's people. I thought that perfectly possible way before I ever read about Northwoods or any other operation. Just because someone could be motivated to do something does not means they did.

I can see already from the responses that there is no point going into any further detail of your plan. Let's just agree to disagree.

I believe the government might have had some fault in the 911 attacks......

Aren't you forgetting those enormous jet engines that are nine feet tall and weigh two tons? Where they would have slammed into the pentagon there is absolutely NO DAMAGE to the building and windows!!

And where the wings should have hit, there is NO DAMAGE to the building.

And the pentagon roof did NOT collapse until a half-hour after impact. A half-hour, folks!

Well that is a change from what you first posted – did it make you edgy when you realised the plan may be possible? Without projecting your thought outside the level of the Average Joe I can understand where the ‘fundamentally flawed’ statement comes from.



Perhaps if you accepted the quote purely as it is, without extending it to your own view, then the logic would be more apparent. The context I used the quote in was to say that although my theory may at first seem improbable, it is the only one that can account for all of the available evidence.



I find the Big Lie relevant when people say “wow” as though the plan, for whatever reason, is too much to believe.

Operation Himmler involved the staged attack of German border positions by Poland and gave justification for Hitler’s subsequent ‘defensive’ action. Before being confirmed as a false flag operation at the Nuremberg Trials, I am convinced you would have claimed the plan to rely on “large numbers of stupid or conspiratorial people and uncontrollable reliance on lack of eyewitness on key factors. It's a hugely complex plan with many major risks to exposure that would be difficult to minimise” and would have probably thought it “fundamentally flawed in many ways making the entire plan unrealistic.”

It did happen though, despite the misgivings you certainly would have had in accepting it as possible.



So you understand that a government is capable of doing a 9/11 to its people.. you know there was motivation.. yet still for the hundreds of irregularities and coincidences surrounding the event you somehow miss that it was a false flag operation?



Do you honestly expect our discussions on 9/11 to conclude any other way?

There is a good thread for Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, here, radish.

Flight 93 was the crashed/shot down flight over Pennsylvania.

Seriously, was the purpose of this post just to slap yourself on the back and tell the world how jolly clever you think you are? You misread my post, I clarified. You misread again, I clarified further. I’ll admit my initial ‘wow’ was hardly clear but I was honestly overcome with the amount of problems that immediately sprang to mind that I couldn’t really say much else at that time. My view of how possible your plan is has not changed and insinuating that I’m scared by your ‘truth’ and somehow less capable of thinking outside the box as you is not going to change that.


I understand the logic and the context you were using it in. That doesn’t change it from being bad logic.


I clarified that my ‘wow’ was nothing to do with your plan being ‘too much to believe’, just over how flawed I thought it was.

You raise these things as if to say it’s been done before therefore it’s been done again. I have no problem with false flag operations having been planned/performed in the past. I have no problem with the concept of another false flag being performed again, even over 911, but convincing arguments will have to be made to overcome the specific problems in the case at hand. Just saying ‘well it’s been done before’ is not convincing.

A modern General will still use some strategies first written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago. Someone today could use the strategy of false flag used by any historical reference you wish to provide. But a modern General will not concern himself with the spears, horses and chariots of Sun Tzu, he will have to plan and adapt to the modern technology, intelligence etc of his day. Every different enemy, ground, time etc will need new details. Similarly someone planning a false flag operation today (or in 2001) will have to change and overcome more problems than any other operation done previously, whether that be centuries, decades or even years ago. This is why details are important and a response to a detailed question with an answer like ‘well Hitler could do it’ is not sufficient.

As I’ve said, my problem with your plan is not with its concept or scale as such, but in the many detailed problems I can immediately see. That you hadn’t appeared to put much thought into the details is a concern. The few details you have since provided give me the impression that things I think would be difficult to achieve and lead to further problems you think would be simple. This, and your belief that the CIA/Mossad are the panacea for anything difficult to explain is what lead me to say there was no point going into your plan any further.

The purpose was to appeal to the idea that a plan with seeming flaws to the average person can be achieved by those with a greater knowledge in the area. If the average person were to set out on a brain surgery operation or the building of a nuclear reactor, although they could describe an outline of the basics involved, the plan would be flawed in the fine detail; they would be overcome with the amount of problems that immediately sprang to mind – a neurosurgeon and nuclear physicist respectively would have greater success. Similarly, with intelligence agencies being the authority on false flag operations, why should the average person expect they should be able to pinpoint the fine detail of a plan?

We know about Operation Northwoods, how the military thought it possible to switch aircraft, use pilots under an alias, fake passenger lists, stage shoot downs, etc. I have linked previously to Air America, a civilian airline covertly owned by the CIA for over 25 years. Where then the idea that the plan I outlined is irrevocably impossible comes from just baffles me.



There are two steps to acknowledging the occurrence of a false flag operation – the first to accept its possibility and the second to deduce its likelihood. You generally accept the possibility, yet then basically go on to say, unless you have every intimate detail of the plan’s working, it is somehow impossible.

Operation Himmler

Imagine it is 1st September 1939. We are citizens of Nazi Germany. Tuning into the radio that morning, we hear part of a broadcast from our venerable leader: -

“Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change.”

*Characters in discussion below are fictional, events based on a true story.

Q23: Something isn’t right here… there doesn’t seem to be motivation for a Polish attack, the identification of individuals killed in these attacks hasn’t been verified, the Poles are claiming innocence and it all appears to be falling nicely into Hitler’s hands… [I go on to outline how a false flag operation may have been carried out]

ifusurvive: Wow. Just wow. Where did Germans get Polish uniforms? Which section of the military would seize our own radio station? Where did all the Polish bodies actually dressed in uniforms of their country at our border posts come from? How did they get them to put on the uniforms? How did this all happen secretly with uncontrollable eyewitnesses and no insider throughout spilling the plan? What about the anti German message broadcast from the station?

Q23: Perhaps they got a Polish speaker to read a script?

ifusurvive: How did they convince Franciszek Honiok, a German sympathizer of the Poles, to take part in the operation – his body was found at the scene.

Q23: Maybe they transported him there before forcing him into a uniform at gunpoint, giving him a lethal injection, moving him into position and shooting him to make the attack seem genuine?

ifusurvive: You seem to think this is all easy.

Q23: I am not saying the average citizen could carry out the plan, nor do I have every detail but I do believe the Abwehr German intelligence and SS capable of achieving the operation.

ifusurvive: Is the purpose of this to tell the world how jolly clever you think you are? Your belief that the Abwehr/SS are the panacea for anything difficult to explain is not good enough. No, impossible, the plan is fundamentally flawed in its detail.

Three days later…

Q23: Our ‘defensive’ action against the Poles seems very well organised, almost like it was planned well in advance. Also there are rumours Hitler had told his generals he was to provide them with a casus belli for the invasion of Poland.

Ifusurvive: So? Coincidence.

Some 7 years later, after the Nuremburg Trials testimony of Alfred Naujocks…

Q23: Perhaps if more people had been open to possibilities and demanded answers to questions… [sigh]

Bearing in mind the above scenario, feel free to carry on, ifisurvive: -

That's my point. You can make any vague plan you want and if I ask you to justify your position you can say that you cannot, but the CIA/Mossad are all powerful and would be able to figure it out.


Again, reverting to historical reference rather than the case in hand. Northwoods was a very-high level plan never carried out. You don't know if they got into the detail planning whether they would have found aspects too hard to carry out successfully and have cancelled them. If they did carry on and perform the operation you don't know that it wouldn't have been discovered / whistleblown within days and failed horribly.

And even if the military did think switching aircraft etc was possible in 1962 that doesn't mean they would think the same thing would be possible in 2001. Instead of looking at differences between what Northwoods suggested and what you're suggesting and the huge number of additional problems those differences and 40 years of advancements would raise you just blindly wave Northwoods like it's hard proof of something.


Yes, now pick some event where Q23 believes something is a conspiracy but in fact he is completely wrong. Ifusurvive asks for proof and Q23 gives only vague answers, appeals to history and anything difficult he waves away saying a shady government agency can do it. The conversation is completely the same but Q23 is wrong.

Or pick some event where the official story is not completely true, but Q23's personal view of what's happened is completely wrong. Again, the conversation is completely the same but Q23 is still wrong.

ETA. Incidentally comparing Operation Himmler to what you've suggested in your plan is in no way an equal comparison. Himmler is a far more simple and understandable plan than yours, I assume you were going more for comedy effect than a realistic comparison in your dramatisation. Also it's interesting to note you're using Operation Himmler as an an example of a undiscovered false flag operation when your own sources say it was not believed at the time of the event ("the international public was skeptical of the German version of the incident", "The amatuerish charade fooled nobody and Europe grimly braced it's self for war").

Ok, the CIA and Mossad would have no more idea about how to go about a false flag operation than I do. Their top level agents are no more knowledgeable, trained or resourceful than the average citizen and they certainly do not have access to the latest technology or inside information. For sure, if we cannot recount every detail of a plan then absolutely it cannot have happened.



But of course you are right, history is an irrelevance, it does not repeat and should not be learnt from. I have on the one hand the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggesting this as a possible plan and on the other you are telling me it is not – who to take the word of?



I assure you that Q23 would not be theorizing so intensely in the first place without good reason. That 9/11 was a false flag operation, I have no doubt… that the theory I suggest for Flight 93 is undeniably accurate, of course I reserve giving an absolute answer - I see the theory as possible, likely even, that is it.



At the time of Operation Himmler, it was not possible for anyone not ‘in’ on the plan to lay out every detail of how it was executed. If we discussed the events in 1939, you would be forwarding the exact same argument that you are now for the Flight 93 theory.

Here is the deal – if I am wrong in accepting a possibility I am just someone who, denied the answers to his questions, accounted for all the evidence and came to a logical but incorrect conclusion. If you are wrong in labelling an event impossible, you are as one of the people that blindly followed Hitler to war. Your call which is the best position to take but I shall keep an open mind and entertain an idea around all of the facts.

Whilst the official line is severely questioned, I am not asking for anyone to accept the version I suggest as true or even likely; just to acknowledge the possibility, no matter how small you deem it is. I believe once the possibilities that abound within 9/11 are accepted, putting aside bias and viewing the whole scene with all of its oddities, coincidences and unanswered questions speaks for itself.

Edit: I think we have discussed my theory enough. You mentioned you believe there to be outstanding questions regarding Flight 93. Can I ask what you believe those to be and perhaps for your version of events?

I’ve never said the CIA / Mossad / whoever you wish to blame things on are not more capable of clandestine operations than you. My point is it’s an easy get out clause for you to use in any debate, you wouldn’t have to admit difficulties or flaws or change or rethink, you can just pull out the CIA/Mossad wildcard which makes some specific debate pointless.



Instead of addressing the point in my argument you are ignoring it and trying to claim I said I knew better than the Joint Chiefs of Staff when I clearly didn’t. I know at my work I’ve been involved with projects that were planned out by the relevant experts and when we’ve got into the details many things have had to be radically altered for it to work or in some cases the entire project cancelled. I’m sure you’ve seen this in your work / personal life too. I’m sure you’re not saying this has never happened in military projects.

Let’s have a much more mundane example to be more clear on this. In 1962 someone plans a long journey. They plan a long car ride, the person is good at map reading and initially chooses the best roads to use. But the journey gets cancelled so he doesn’t look into it any further. Perhaps if it went ahead he would have planned deeper, realised one of the roads takes him past a bad traffic black spot and he changed that part of the route. Perhaps he would have miscalculated his fuel stops and ran out of petrol before the end of his journey. Perhaps his journey would have been perfect. We’ll never know, as he didn’t actually travel.
So, 40 years later he plans to do the same journey. Should he just crack on and blindly follow the same route that he planned 40 years ago because he thinks it would have worked then? Of course not, he would check whether there were better routes – maybe one of the initial roads are now in terrible repair and can’t be used, maybe he would realise that route takes him past the same traffic black spot he didn’t initially see in 1962, or a new black spot, maybe there’s a new highway that’s been built since. Perhaps he shouldn’t use his car because there’s now a great bus service. Perhaps he shouldn’t even use the roads because technology has advanced and he can fly there. Or perhaps the same journey he planned in 1962 is still the best for him. Whatever choices he makes for his journey will be based on what options and difficulties he’ll face now, not what he thought was possible 40 years ago.

As for your comment of ‘history is an irrelevance’, you apparently didn’t read my post #128. There was a paragraph there that clearly stated history was relevant and repeated. It also made the point that whilst general strategies can be successfully repeated the tactics used have to be adapted to the relevant time / enemy and not just blindly copied from previous plans.

The fact that Operation Himmler was not believed at the time of it happening is a fairly good indicator that is was not too hard for everyone to figure out what really happened. Exact details, maybe not, but plausible details, certainly.

The answers you gave in your Himmler dramatisation are simple, believable answers at a convincing level of detail to explain a relatively simple plan. For your plan the answers you give are vague and unconvincing for a far more complex plan.

You cannot seriously compare questions about complex individual aspects of your plan like swapping flights at airports or clandestine meetings of three large airliners or accurately controlled shoot-downs to ‘How did Germans get Polish uniforms?'. If you think my problems with your plan are the equivalent of me or anyone else being incredulous at you saying ‘they forced someone into a uniform and shot them’ then that’s only proof of how over-simple you view your plan.


I like the appeal to emotion, like the idea that in this example I’d be a Nazi would somehow change my mind. Given that in the case of Flight 93 I have said that there are outstanding questions including with the official story it’s interesting that I am being accused of ‘blindly following’. Not as interesting though as someone with a Northwoods avatar and a Northwoods signature who’s version of the Flight 93 events just happens to be a copy and paste job from the Northwoods plan is talking about keeping an open mind…


I’ve generally kept away from discussions on Flight 93 because there are many outstanding curiosities. On this thread I make a comment about the plausibility of one small aspect pretty much on a whim. If I knew what your plan of events was from the start I would never have bothered posting.

I don’t personally have a hard version of events for Flight 93, as I’ve said before there is a lot of conflicting information. I’m sure I could come up with a version of events but I know it would be flawed. Maybe I could throw in come cutting edge technology to help patch up a few of the plot holes (invisibility? matter transport? we know science has had some successes with this, who knows what leaps the government has made in secret).

My personal lack of one hard story doesn’t change the validity of your one hard story. If you just said you thought there was some kind of conspiracy we would never have gotten into any discussion. Whilst looking into the details of Flight 93 I’ve read a lot of conspiracy theories that although not completely convincing do make a lot better points and have a lot more aspects of believability than your personal plan. Your belief in conspiracy I have no issue with, your conviction in the reliability of your story I do. You say ‘I am not asking for anyone to accept the version I suggest as true or even likely’ yet in the same post you also say your plan is ‘undeniably accurate’.

When I talk about wanting details to a plan I’m not looking for the name and number of all Mossad agents involved I’m looking for something that suggests thought has been used to create the plan and realistic answers have been found. But your high-level view rings so many alarm bells for potential problems and your few details don’t clear them up and in a few cases raise more alarms. You may not have thought about your plan in depth but the CIA / Mossad / whoever will have had to and all the potential problems would have to have been catered for and minimised. Any project that is planned has to be risk assessed. I’m sure if we did go into all the details you could probably come up with some vague idea of how to cover something up. But every time you do it adds more complexity. The sheer volume of risks that would have to be raised its self makes your plan infeasible from a risk assessment basis.

I believe that they overpowered the cockpit. Which they obviously did. Since these monsters where to busy trying to keep order. And the plane went upside down then it hit the field.

What am I suppose to put the jellybeans in?

I don't think we ever shot it down. Then what happened to the people & these monsters?

=/

May I remind you. The plane was going fast. Or whatever a speed a plane flies out. (A car that goes over over 100 that crushes will cause a big impact into whatever it smashes into.)

After outlining the broad plan and even solutions to achieving it whilst leaving the CIA/Mossad only to pull it off, it is unfair to say I use them as a wildcard for any difficulties. If I were requiring the intelligence services to walk on water, feed the 5,000 or some other miracle then I would understand your point. The most complex aspects I am suggesting are deceiving of air traffic control, restricting communications, limiting of witnesses and some control of the crash scene - 'wow' I think not - all fairly mundane for the CIA and a unit whose motto is reputed to be "By way of deception thou shalt make war".