Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryX

If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

1,212 posts in this topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Dis Pater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

But WAS it headed for Washington?

In this interview Bill Ryan speaks with 'Elizabeth Neslon' (pseudonym)...who says she was present when the

orders to shoot down Flight 93 were made.

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

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

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

fully secure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

passenger revolt story and it bothered her.

anyway here is the interview...

other parts

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

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quillius

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

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

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

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

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your instincts serve you well, 747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quillius

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

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

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

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

Well of course the events of the day were planned. I highly doubt 19 individuals just showed up on a bunch of planes with the same intention and it all just kind of worked out.

As to the families not talking to investigators, WOULD YOU? Some of the families were fairly visible in the first few years following 9/11 - some even wrote books did they not? But a decade plus later, who would still be sending private investigators out - yep, the kooks. Would you talk to those people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafterman

The interesting part is that while the surviving family members of the passengers were most uncooperative, the surviving family members of the casualties at WTC were most COOPERATIVE with private investigators. They were curious as to just exactly what happened. So curious that they became politically active and agreed to cooperate in a documentary film about that.

The others were NOT.

You might not be able to perceive any implications in that behavior, but I can, and so can many others. The obvious implication is that those people, as a group, had something to hide.

To clarify, these were investigators working right after the events of the day. Not now, not today, but immediately afterward.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quillius

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

agreed...glad you do too as this indicates no accident hence FBI investigating it :P

.

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

why even bother with this plane and elaborate set up? WTC buildings were amble if the reason was an excuse to start a war? Big liability to put into a plan with no real additional benefit

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

I wouldnt want to talk to investigators. Or maybe they informed the families that it was actually shot down but this will not be made public :(

I guess thats the problem with speculations as to why people do or dont do things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retired Army Colonel, Donn de Grand-Pre, has stated on record that Flight 93 was shot down by the fighters from Langley and personally knows the pilot but would not name names.

Who exactly is Donn de Grand-Pre? He must have got around a bit as various conspiracy sites list him as a colonel in the Army, Marines and Air Force. He seems to have been a conspiracist pre-911 and publishes his own books:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Barbarians-inside-gates-vipers-venom/dp/096643742X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334843268&sr=1-1

He takes his name from a book title:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Done-Grand-Pre-Will-Bird/dp/B0007IX49O/ref=sr_1_37?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334843070&sr=1-37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt 19 individuals just showed up on a bunch of planes with the same intention and it all just kind of worked out.

It wasn’t far from that at all.

Osama bin Laden stated that the ‘muscle hijacker’ group were made aware of the operation only shortly before boarding the planes and that they did not even know the ‘pilot hijacker’ group. It was only the smart ones – the Westernised, non-devout, short-term ‘Al Qaeda’ affiliated hijacker pilots from the Hamburg cell in Europe (not Afghanistan!) who made the operation possible – that appeared to know what was to happen. There was not so much as a practice run between the hijackers beforehand. It was not planned out well… for a genuine hijack mission - you cannot carry out a mission and trust someone you don’t know.

It looks like a setup – Atta was in charge in the U.S., not bin Laden, and three quarters of the hijackers were not aware of their fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just thought, if the plane was shot prior to coming down wouldnt the impact from the missile have created smoke also? maybe even a smoke trail down into the ground..we see the smoke (in Boons video previous page) rising from the impact with ground..why not any other smoke prior to crashing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not planned out well… for a genuine hijack mission - you cannot carry out a mission and trust someone you don’t know.

oh I don't know...they had it planned well enough to get direct hits on the two World Trade Centres.

It looks like a setup – Atta was in charge in the U.S., not bin Laden, and three quarters of the hijackers were not aware of their fate.

we can be sure they knew it was a suicide mission...what else could they have thought it would be?

:blink:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess it's my turn to be gobsmacked. :)

Cheers

Well lets treasure this moment because it might be a long time before it happens again. :tu:

That's actually a rarity around these parts and I'm glad you have enough character to share that. :tu:

Although I'm often painted as a conspiracy theorist, nothing could be further from the truth, or should that be twoof! :lol:

I'm always willing to update my thinking when evidence is presented which shows alternative possibilities as to what I believe. To do otherwise would be relying on faith in what I personally believe and I don't really do faith. If someone shows me something which I believe to be wrong, then I learn from it and get on with it. Whats the point in pretending your right about something when you are wrong? After all, we are all humans and humans make mistakes, some more than others mind! hehehe!!

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, none of the F-16s were even armed to shoot down anything. The 9/11 Truthers would have found that out if they had done a bit of real research.

Maybe you should read the 9/11 commission again. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just thought, if the plane was shot prior to coming down wouldnt the impact from the missile have created smoke also? maybe even a smoke trail down into the ground..we see the smoke (in Boons video previous page) rising from the impact with ground..why not any other smoke prior to crashing?

As you said, maybe there was at some point (maybe it dispersed at higher altitude and/or quickly too). There is one mainstream newspaper article which does report a witness seeing, smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell, though it is unsourced - apparently the FBI told some locals not to talk about what they saw. If you can find any footage of the flight path prior to the crash then we will check it to see… but there isn’t any, so we cannot know for certain.

we can be sure they knew it was a suicide mission...what else could they have thought it would be?

If I was handling these guys, rather than Atta, I might have set it up as a regular hijacking… tell the ‘muscle hijackers’ we are going to take a plane and demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Saudi Arabia… once they board it’s too late… patsies…

I wonder, did Franciszek Honiok know he was going to attack Gleiwitz and provide Hitler the pretext to launch WW2 that day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have got to be kidding.

The plane did not hit the ground and then blow debris in the air which landed in an isolated debris field 6 miles away. Any viewing of the smoke plume immediately after the crash should tell you it was neither moving fast nor contained debris. Had the debris somehow dispersed from ground level we would be looking at a continuous trail of debris from the crash epicentre. What we actually have is an isolated debris field miles away. The aircraft was damaged in the air – it does not have to fly over the isolated debris field; just be damaged in the air for it to be carried there together.

Even we assume the debris came from the crash epicentre in the ground, it does not contradict the shootdown.

Flight 93 was shot down – everything points that way.

Please see my posts #1997 and #1999 here for the some of the wider evidence.

Hi Q24,

UA93 is not something I have researched heavily or at any real length.

I can't imagine myself how debris hit the ground and traveled for that kind of distance, it doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem possible. However, Boo has shown a flight which crashed and strewn debris 2 miles away according to the NTSB report.

Now of course, it doesn't entirely rule out the shoot down order, especially when you consider that Rumsfeld and Stone and maybe others have stated that it was shot down on record but the evidence he has evidence presented counters my belief that says it wasn't possible.

So I have to go with what the evidence suggests.

Where as before I was convinced it was shot down, I have to sit in the middle of the fence and say I don't truly know one way or another. In my opinion he hasn't ruled out the possibility, but he has supported the possibility that it could have just crashed and strewn debris that kind of distance.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, maybe there was at some point (maybe it dispersed at higher altitude and/or quickly too). There is one mainstream newspaper article which does report a witness seeing, smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell

It is well known in aviation circles that after every crash, whatever the cause, there is always a witness who says that. It was something of a standing joke in Flight magazine's "Straight and Level" column decades ago.

Just as a matter of interest, how does a shoot down fit in with your theory of the airliners being switched for remote-controlled aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should read the 9/11 commission again. :w00t:

Could you explain exactly where in the 9/11 Commission Report it talks about the armed status of the fighters? Because you probably won't be able to. In any case, here's something from the report.

...the NEADS mission crew commander...explicitly instructed the Langley fighters, "negative- negative clearance to shoot" aircraft..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was handling these guys, rather than Atta, I might have set it up as a regular hijacking… tell the muscle hijackers we are going to take a plane and demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Saudi Arabia… once they board its too late… patsies…

patsies!!

yeah..like Militant Islamic Jihadists aren't into martyrdom...???

I wonder, did Franciszek Honiok know he was going to attack Gleiwitz and provide Hitler the pretext to launch WW2 that day?

Gawd knows

(but I expect you do...cus you seem to know everything... :P)

Did you know about The Raven Rock Mountain Complex as a possible target for Flight 93.... :innocent:

(my post 402, in case you missed it)

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain exactly where in the 9/11 Commission Report it talks about the armed status of the fighters? Because you probably won't be able to. In any case, here's something from the report.

It is in the footnotes of the 9/11 commission report.
238. These estimates are based on analysis of Boeing 757 maximum operating speed data, FAA and military radar data, and assumptions regarding how the airplane would be operated en route to the Washington, D. C. , area. The shortest time frame assumes maximum speed without regard to overspeed warnings, a straight-line path, and no time allowed for maneuvering or slowing to aim and crash the airplane into its target. The probable time frame allows for speeds consistent with the observed operation of the airplane prior to its final maneuvers and crash, as well as for maneuvers and slowing in the D. C. area to take aim. According to radar data, the fighters from Langley Air Force Base arrived over Washington at about 10:00 A. M. Two of the three Langley fighters were fully armed (i. e. , with missiles and guns); the third fighter carried only guns. Craig Borgstrom interview (Dec. 1, 2003).

Footnotes of 9/11 Commission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in the footnotes of the 9/11 commission report.

The F-16s were over Washington D.C., not over Shanksville and the only Air Force aircraft that reported the smoke plume was the C-130 that followed American 77 until it crashed into the Pentagon. There is no record from Langley AFB that any missiles were fired on United 93.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine myself how debris hit the ground and traveled for that kind of distance, it doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem possible. However, Boo has shown a flight which crashed and strewn debris 2 miles away according to the NTSB report.

Where as before I was convinced it was shot down, I have to sit in the middle of the fence and say I don't truly know one way or another. In my opinion he hasn't ruled out the possibility, but he has supported the possibility that it could have just crashed and strewn debris that kind of distance.

Not all plane crashes are the same and Flight 427 is incomparable to that of 93 in regard to the debris field. If you check the pictures, in the case of Flight 427 there was a lot of wreckage on the surface which could have blown into the air, unlike 93 which was almost entirely buried in the ground. We also have pictures and footage of the Flight 93 smoke plume which do not appear to support an isolated debris field 6 miles away (opposed to the much closer 2.5 miles of Flight 427) – which you state yourself “doesn’t seem possible” judging by what you have seen in this specific case. I’d trust your own instincts in any given case, in particular considering how it fits with the rest of the evidence.

Anyhow, I agree it is nothing like ruled out that Flight 93 was shot down - the isolated debris field is one piece of evidence from many.

Just as a matter of interest, how does a shoot down fit in with your theory of the airliners being switched for remote-controlled aircraft?

NORAD pre-empted the order from Bush/Cheney… took the plane down before the switch… though there are other options.

The 9/11 Commission also concluded this as a possibility (about the NORAD pre-emption) but, as could be expected in a cover-up of the shoot down, write it off as “unlikely”, in their opinion: -

“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. We are not so sure.”

We are not so sure??

Oh, how reassuring that the 9/11 Commission determined all of the facts.

:rolleyes:

:hmm:

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, maybe there was at some point (maybe it dispersed at higher altitude and/or quickly too). There is one mainstream newspaper article which does report a witness seeing, "smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell",

This is the photo taken just after United 93 crashed. Please show us a smoke trail leading to the smoke plume near the ground.

plume_val_small1.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not so sure??

Here is the place where the folks there can tell you for sure.

Langley AFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.