Skip to main content

to Flight 93?

I firmly believe that this doomed aircraft was shot down by our own military!

There were three--that day 4 years ago Sunday-- that met a horrible end--Flight 11; Flight 175
and Flight 93...

The History Channel's coverage is propagandalized from start to finish.

Read the sources below that have me thinking in a different direction. {I am still researching my sources)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld .flt93/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/september11 /bush_three.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93. html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm



Fine

Always Remember that: "Anytime We As A People Are Not Having Our WaySomeone Else Is Having Theirs...And It's Never To Our Advantage."

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

You know it's interesting. I saw a documentary on 9/11 where Cheney authorized the immediate shooting down of any aircraft that came withn a 30 mile radius of the Capitol. That said, how on Earth did flight 93 get to the Pentagon? Beyond that, why are there no videos of the plane hitting the Peantagon? In a city as modern and full of tourists as DC, no video at all? Why do we see multiple angles of the NYC attacks but not of 93?

I think the plane was shot down - perhaps appropriately so. I think the "let's roll" scenario was largely a Karl Rove type creation designed to innoculate Bush from any potential political fall-out from the act. To me, it's actually hilarious that we are expected to think that a big 'ole plane fit into the tiny little hole that whatever hit the Pentagon (a missile?) made. ek
I think the shoot down order came after Flight 93 had already hit the building.

As for the missile does anyone know of a missle that would have caused that much damage, the only ones capable of carrying a warhead that large are slow enough that they can actually be seem and shot down as evidenced by the first gulf war.
Guys, flight 93 wasn't the plane that hit the Pentagon. 93 was the Shenksville plane.

And MBM, why do you think it's so implausible that there was no video of the Pentagon hit? New York is way more populated than DC, and even there, I've only ever seen one amateur shot of the first plane approaching the first (North) tower. There's no place on earth as photographed and videotaped as Manhattan; if only one photo accidentally caught the first plane in the distance, then I don't get this incredulity about the Pentagon attack never getting imaged.

And Fine, one thing is sure: if the events of flight 93 didn't happen as advertised, then they BETTER have shot that plane down.

I have no problem accepting that the people on board the plane tried to do something (after all, why wouldn't they?). But what worries me is the possibility that the passengers did get control of it, but got shot down anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

And MBM, why do you think it's so implausible that there was no video of the Pentagon hit?


I just don't believe that a key part our nation's capital - particularly around a place as important as the Pentagon - would be essentially "invisible" like that. No security cams any where? Confused

Plus - there seem to be some considerable inconsistencies surrounding the Pentagon accident in terms of the physics and forensics of the entire thing. The combination of the lack of photographic evidence and the physical questions leads to my skepticism.
I still disagree with that "plane-didn't-hit-Pentagon" argument, but I don't think it matters, because the main point needs to remain clear regardless: The Project for the New American Century wrote in 2000 that their plans for establishing American global dominance, which would begin with the invasion of Iraq, would be tough to commence, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were members of the P.N.A.C. Whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, an analysis of this PNAC connection leaves no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 occurred because these people needed that "catalyzing event" in order to get moving on the Bush Administration's entire reason for being.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

. . . an analysis of this PNAC connection leaves no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 occurred because these people needed that "catalyzing event" in order to get moving on the Bush Administration's entire reason for being.


So - in your opinion, was Bush et al actually BEHIND 9/11 as some contend, did they just allow it to happen, or were they merely the passive beneficiaries of it?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

So - in your opinion, was Bush et al actually BEHIND 9/11 as some contend, did they just allow it to happen, or were they merely the passive beneficiaries of it?


Again, the invasion of Iraq was the centerpiece of the entire reason why top members of PNAC became top members of the Bush Administration. So there is no way they would've just sat around hoping that some attack would happen. So I rule out the "passive beneficiary" argument.

I believe that they knew that Al-Qaeda was actively trying to attack us; in fact, we all knew as much, given everything they apparently did/tried to do before 2001. So there probably was an effort to suppress the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies, so that an attack could happen.

That makes the most sense to me. I would doubt they actually engineered the events of 9/11, or that they necessarily knew that this exact attack would occur. Although, the relationship between Wolfowitz & company with Bin Laden's family makes that latter possibility worth considering...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×