Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I think you're too harsh on Joe Public. You tend to blame the victim, Ron.

I believe that in a democracy people get the government they deserve.

Two American crime families, the Bushes and Clintons, have occupied the White House now for 18 years (26 if you include the Reagan years during which George H.W. Bush ran things behind the scenes while claiming to be "out of the loop"). Hillary is now ready to take her turn. How are the people who keep voting for these crooks the victims?

In the support they get from the voters, the Bushes and Clintons are not unlike the TV evangelist Jim Bakker in his heyday. Someone reportedly asked him privately why he, ostensibly a man of God, had such a luxurious life style, and Bakker said, "Because fools keep sending me money."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with theories that flight 93 was shot down is the absolute dearth of evidence to support them. Numerous witnesses saw the plane crash or shortly before or after it crashed both on the ground and in the air. None (that I know of) reported seeing:

- the plane struck by a missile.

- damage consistent with a missile stike.

- an F-15, F-16 or other fighter in the vicinity.

True a few witnesses describe seeing a white “military style jet” but their descriptions of the plane resemble that of the executive jet reported in the area and don’t match that of any fighter except possibly the A-10 “Warthog” (Ron suggested this a while ago) which is unlikely to have been used since:

Its top speed of about 438 MPH is much slower that other fighters and less even than a 757.

It is designed to provide air support for ground forces e.g. attack tanks etc and would not be well suited to shooting down an airborne and faster flying Boeing.

One also wonders why they would use such a plane and fly it low when they could have shot flight 93 more easily, quickly and inconspicuously with an air to air fighter at high altitude. (Hopefully Evan will further elaborate on this point)

Shot down theorists point to the debris field but with the exception of an engine turbine found about 1000 feet down hill from the crash site there is little evidence of anything other than lightweight debris paper, seat covers and some screws found far from the rest of the wreckage. As for the turbine one has to take into account the energy of the crash of a 100 ton aircraft at an acute angle at 580 mph (930 kph) and that of a spinning turbine providing half the thrust to keep a 100 ton aircraft airborne and flying at 580 mph and that it was found downhill from the rest of the plane.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN report on Flight 93:

America Under Attack: FBI and State Police Cordon Off Debris Area Six to Eight Miles from Crater Where Plane Went Down

"DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we want to take our viewers live to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our Brian Cabell is standing by. This of course is the site where United

Airlines flight 93 crashed on its way from Newark to San Francisco, crashed on Tuesday, and I understand, in this investigation, there's some breaking news. Brian, what can

you tell us?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area

about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from

the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely.

Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course. But there were some cell phone

callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane

apparently announced at one point, he had -- there was a bomb on board the plane.

Again, we don't want to speculate, we don't want to jump to conclusions. But what we do know is that there's a site about half mile behind me, where the plane went down, where

most of the debris is, and then about six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that's been cordoned off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is

debris from the plane located there. We have a crew on the way right now. We should have pictures of that a little bit later on.

KAGAN: Which was first question, so I'll move on to my next one, Brian.

WE don't want to speculate about this large debris field. But it seems to me from covering a number of plane crashes on the scene, that if nothing else, this is not typical for a

plane crash to be spread across an area this large.

CABELL: It's certainly doesn't make sense, because most of the debris has been found in a very compact area, within 100 yards, 200 yards, maybe a little bit beyond that.

Then all of a sudden they're telling us six miles away, they have another concentration of debris, very small pieces. Most peoples here no bigger than the size of briefcase. The

debris six miles away may be smaller. We have talked to a number of individuals here. They say they have talked to people who saw this plane during the final moments. They

haven't confirmed whether they saw -- whether they talked to anybody who saw this plane actually land, or crash rather, and as to whether it broke up on the way, we don't

know that. The FBI being very tight-lipped about that.

But again, at It leads to that possibility. It certainly leads to a number of questions.

KAGAN: You mentioned they have yet to find the black box. It would seems to me when you compare the four plane crashes of Tuesday, this would be the site where they

would be most likely to find a black box.

CABELL: That's what they told us initially, and I think they're somewhat disappointed they haven't found it. It's been 48 hours, but they are still hopeful they will find it. There

is a pond nearby this particular site. They may have to send divers into the pond. They haven't done that yet, but conceivably, it could be in the pond, it could be anywhere, it

could be at this other debris side. They've also found some other debris scattered around this area. They say in fact some individuals have been collecting it. Again, we're

talking about very, very tiny parts. The biggest part they found at this site is an engine, an engine part, and most of the other pieces are probably no bigger than this particular

notebook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to the alleged cell phone calls made from Flight 93:

February 1, 1999 - Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a voice morphing technology that can

clone another person's voice by taking a few minute digital recording of someone's voice.

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being

delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.

Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human

vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding

and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.

Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far

more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks. Eliminated are the robotic intonations.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also

privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future." - Washington Post (02/01/99)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good info against the possiblility of the calls being faked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/calls_faked.html

Particularly of interest is the passenger telling where her will was located and the combination of the safe that held it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

Why would they fake a cell phone call from a Flight 93 flight attendant to her husband that included wind noise, a sure sign of the plane being hit by a missile or otherwise holed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

Why would they fake a cell phone call from a Flight 93 flight attendant to her husband that included wind noise, a sure sign of the plane being hit by a missile or otherwise holed?

1/ The fakers need not necessarily be \'the government\'. If indeed they were within the US Government, they\'d only be a tiny part thereof.

2/ The alleged cell calls were central to the promotion of this story - from the first few hours of day one - as a case of hijacking by Arab terrorists.

If you recall, one of the alleged callers was none other than Barbara Olson, wife of the US Solicitor General.

That account, for me, was crucial in pursuading me (and many others, I suspect), in the first few days, that the official story was no lie.

The accounts of the cell phone calls therefore had a crucial function in the spinning the official story, from the outset.

If the calls weren\'t, in fact, possible - then the entire official story of 9-11 is exposed as a gigantic fraud,

That\\\'s the significance of Dewdney\'s \'Project Achilles\' work.

The website cited above (http://www.911myths.com) that purports to debunk Dewdney\\\'s findings and analysis are, IMO, the 9-11 equivalents of John McAdams JFK Assassination website.

Cleverly presented disinformation, quite pursuasive on a casual browsing.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

I would prefer not to stray too far from the central question, was flight 93 shot down, I have posted two main planks of evidence supporting this postion namely, the crash site anomilies, and the eyewitnesses accounts, is anyone able to offer counter testimony here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence that 93 was shot down, but it is not conclusive, basically because not a single person among the eyewitnesses, as far as I know, saw it get hit by anything. Also, I don't think anyone saw what they specifically identified as a jet fighter. They saw a small white jet that some said looked like a military aircraft. According to the government, a NetJet was indeed tracking 93. But we are not entitled to know any details about that. There was a suspicious debris field and a suspiciously empty hole in the ground. The military lied about the whole thing, saying first that no jet fighters took off in time to intercept 93, then saying that fighters did get to the area but did not shoot down 93, and then saying the military knew nothing bout 93 till it crashed. When the government suppresses information and lies with impunity, and witnesses change their stories as happened in this case, there is no practical way for private researchers to get to the bottom of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Fleegle, Brant and Delasco, about two and a half miles from the crash site describe hearing engines screaming, and hearing an explosion, followed by a fireball,and then debris, lots of debris, some on fire, crawshing into the lake. Now, unless their lying, this explosion must have been either internal or external, as nobody has ever claimed that the terrorists were carrying explosives it must therefore have come from an external source, nothing else makes any sence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Ron, they describe the plane as being in the air at this time, above their heads, and some two, to two and a half miles from its crash point. The debris falls directly from the cargo hold area. Part of this debris was, apparantly an engine block.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CNN report on Flight 93:

America Under Attack: FBI and State Police Cordon Off Debris Area Six to Eight Miles from Crater Where Plane Went Down

"DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we want to take our viewers live to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our Brian Cabell is standing by. This of course is the site where United

Airlines flight 93 crashed on its way from Newark to San Francisco, crashed on Tuesday, and I understand, in this investigation, there's some breaking news. Brian, what can

you tell us?

[...]

CABELL: That's what they told us initially, and I think they're somewhat disappointed they haven't found it. It's been 48 hours, but they are still hopeful they will find it. There

is a pond nearby this particular site. They may have to send divers into the pond. They haven't done that yet, but conceivably, it could be in the pond, it could be anywhere, it

could be at this other debris side. They've also found some other debris scattered around this area. They say in fact some individuals have been collecting it. Again, we're

talking about very, very tiny parts. The biggest part they found at this site is an engine, an engine part, and most of the other pieces are probably no bigger than this particular

notebook.

Nowhere do they indicate what was found at the site except that it was small except that Cabell seems to be indicating the engine part was found where he was this contradicts all other counts.

The Pittsburg Pulp an alternative paper from the closest major city to the crash site spoke to a weapons expert about such theories:

Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

"There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things."

Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/...ver_story.shtml

Sherman’s FAS bio can be read here:

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/staff.htm

Another oddity if 911research is correct the distant debris was found east of the crash site and flight 93 was flying west to east i.e. the 757 never flew over the area where the supposed debris was found.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6447.html

Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

Why would they fake a cell phone call from a Flight 93 flight attendant to her husband that included wind noise, a sure sign of the plane being hit by a missile or otherwise holed?

There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already.

http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

The flight attendant’s husband’s account is odd but he says she called at 9:58 just about the same time as the 911 call and that “he heard a whooshing sound, a sound LIKE wind," * 5 – 8 minutes before the plane crashed. Are we to believe that the plane flew that much time holed and none of the witnesses on the ground noticed the hole. Why would such an in effective missile been used? 5 – 8 minutes would have been enough time to land the plane if there had been a live pilot aboard. Also from what I understand most air to air missles are heat seeking meaning they’d hit the engines not the fuselage. The husband didn’t mention the sound in other accounts of the call**

* http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060099097...=13&go.y=13

** http://911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html

Steve, I hope you feel that this fits into the confines of the thread also I second Ron’s request for the complete quotes and links I haven’t seen them either.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Before 9-11, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters."

Between September 2000 and June, 2001, there were 67 scrambles/intercepts by NORAD, according to a joint statement released by FAA and NORAD on August 5, 2002. This was further reported the next week by the AP. The same sources stated that in the calendar year 2000, there were 129 scrambles/intercepts. FAA/NORAD estimated that 80-85% were of domestic planes flying in the continental U. S. There is evidence that an intercept took place in the skies near Fresno, California, in the week before 9-11.

Further, the Boston Globe, in an interview published 4 days after the attacks, quoted Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman as saying that "its fighters routinely intercept aircraft." Snyder then goes on to describe NORAD's graduated response--wing-waggling, overpass, tracer rounds--to an intercepted plane.

According to an FAA regulation which went into effect in July, 2001, an FAA official--the Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) is stationed in NORAD headquarters full-time to work together to handle emergencies.

In June, 2004, Laura Brown, Public Affairs Director of the FAA, submitted to the 9-11 Commission a memo stating by 8:45 AM phone bridges linking NORAD, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, NSC, Secret Service, FAA and the National Military Command Center were in place. This is virtually the instant that Flight 11 hit WTC North Tower. Any claims of "being in the dark, of the left hand not knowing what the right was doing, of radars which couldn't see without transponder input" are negated.

There is evidence that the White House (and some media outlets) were in the know even before 8:45. As Bush was preparing to leave Longboat Resort for the Emma Booker School (a time which is placed at 8:35-36), he was seen to be in conversation with Andrew Card. A newsman then asked if the President had anything to say about "the situation in New York." Bush replied that he would have a comment after his school visit. At 8:35 or 8:36, two planes had been hijacked--but in Boston, not New York. The planes were en route to New York. This story was aired on ABC News the night of 9-11, reported by John Cochran to Peter Jennings on the evening newscast. Cochran and ABC stand behind the story. And certainly it would have been difficult for Cochran to have confused the time and place of the comment, since it included the President's statement that he would have some comment after his school visit. This is awfully early in the events of the day and indicates that Laura Brown of the FAA may have been right in her original statement about the phone bridges--that they were put in place at 8:20 or 8:25, not 8:45. But how would one explain the reference to New York City.

NORAD has revised its timetable on four occasions--three after originally stating (both Acting JCS General Myers and spokesman Mike Snyder) that NORAD scrambled no planes at all until the Pentagon was hit. NORAD's stance that it was always "looking outward" and had no experience in handling intra-continental intercepts is belied both by the record it admits to and also to the fact that some aspects of the 5 wargames in progress on September 11 involved hijackings over the U. S. and also involved injecting false radar images onto scopes.

Edited by Wallace Milam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...