Letsroll9-11 claims to have identified the pilot who shot down flight 93

[Jazzz]

LetsRoll911.org has discovered that Fight 93 was definitely shot down.

LetsRoll has discovered the name of the pilot as well as all other pertinent information regarding this incident;

"At precisely 0938 hours, an alarm was sounded at Langely Air Force Base, and those whom were on call, drinking coffee, were scrambled. Thus the 119th Fighter Wing was off for an intercept.

They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After confirmation orders were received, A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;

He was awarded a medal from the Governor one year later for his heroic actions. As well as Decorated by Congress on 9/13/2001. The Happy Hooligans were previously stationed in North Dakota, and moved to Langley Air Force base some months before 911 occured on a "Temporary assignment."

rest of article

 

[pbman]

rest of article

Decoarated by congress?

Lets see that one.

The only pass our the metal of honor. IIRC

 

[Jazzz]

Just to remind people of this Killtown article previously making a strong case for a military shootdown of flight 93

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Where's their evidence that this guy shot down Flight 93 then? I was waiting for it, but then I reached the end of the page... all I see is a site saying "we know this guy did it".

 

[fela fan]

DrJ, you've missed the boat man!! Editor's been at Glastonbury for days now. I believe it is all over, just as you post this thread! You could've got days' worth of debate in without your adversary's counter points coming in thick and fast!!

Oh well...

 

[Jangla]

Hmmm. Backing this up with the original transcripts of flights in the area that had a visual on the craft gives it more weight. At least 2 aircraft winessed smoke coming from the craft before it went down through cloud level. At the time some thought it was a bomb on board that caused it.

 

[editor]

Could someone point me in the direction of the hard hitting, incontrovertible 'evidence' about flight 93 being shot down please because as far as I can see there isn't a scrap of anything approaching solid proof on that site.

(Incidentally, I wouldn't be tremendously surprised if the flight had been shot down and covered up for fear of political and public repercussions. After all, there's some logic to such actions, unlike all the bonkers remote control/imploding towers/Mike Yarwood shite that DrJ posts up)

 

[Jazzz]

Where's their evidence that this guy shot down Flight 93 then? I was waiting for it, but then I reached the end of the page... all I see is a site saying "we know this guy did it".

They are claiming that someone in a position to know is spilling the beans. An educated guess would be that their source is likely to be Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who claimed to know the identity of the pilot in this interview with Alex Jones

...

John: And was United Airlines Flight 93 shot down in Pennsylvania by a U.S. or NATO pilot and was that what was supposed to hit the Pentagon?

DGP: No, that was hit at 10:00 hours. It was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93.

John: Was it shot down because the airline pilots actually regained control of the hijacked auto-pilot or was that to replace the unmanned drone that was shot down?

DGP: No, it was the aircraft, you see, had totally unconscious people on board. There were no hijackers. At 9:35, the Happy Hooligans, the Air Guard flying the F-16s were ordered to take that plane out. And they took it out from 9:35 to 10:00.

John: Were there any refueling jets involved in that operation?

AJ: Hold on a second, John. The question is why would they deviate from the plan of flying it into the Capitol? Why did the globalists decide to go ahead and shoot the plane down?

DGP: There had been an adjustment to the controls, probably by an AWACs aircraft flying overhead, again, remote control. And it was on a course for either the Capitol or the White House. And at this stage, you don't know. The Happy Hooligans came in and took care of it.

AJ: Do you think they were not following orders?

DGP: Who, the Happy Hooligans?

AJ: Well, yeah, you've got Cheney running around, we've got the stand down taking place.

DGP: Well, this is correct, but you see the Adj. General of the State of North Dakota gave the command to take it out. And, by God, they took it out...

transcript

 

[editor]

They are claiming that someone in a position to know is spilling the beans. An educated guess would be that their source is likely to be Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who claimed to know the identity of the pilot in this interview with Alex Jones

More bonkers drivel from the usual suspects:

DGP: Well, the only thing I can say is that let's consider that second aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. It did have a control device on the belly of the 757. That aircraft was unmanned and went in and blew up as a diversion. And something else happened. This was a sideshow.

AJ: I understand but going back to, we know they had bombs in the buildings, it's now admitted, but going back to what the caller said, your saying these elements in the military when push came to shove are going to stand up. Well, I would say that 911 was the globalists pushing. So, where's the shove? That's his question..

Be warned DrJ: we are not going through all this shit all over again.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They are claiming that someone in a position to know is spilling the beans. An educated guess would be that their source is likely to be Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who claimed to know the identity of the pilot in this interview with Alex Jones



transcript

If they're doing that, they should have the decency to say so instead of being all coy, to be honest. I mean, what is this, a teaser advert campaign?

I'm not particularly sold on any version (to be frank it's not something that I care all that much about) but if a page is going to make claims like that they should at least say why.

 

[fela fan]

Bejesus! Are drj and editor one and the same person?? After what seems a week's absence, you both reappear at exactly the same time!!!!

Hope you had a good time at glastonbury editor, was there lots of mud? At times like this i feel i'd rather be in england...

Don't tell me you were both there together ?

 

[WouldBe]

Shouldn't this be in the drugs forum?

DGP - the man who thinks a plane flying low and level is performing acrobatic manouvers.

DGP - the man who thinks flight 175 had to be remote controlled because of it's sharp final turn, yet if his aircraft was hijacked would manually flip it upside down to break the hostages necks.

DGP a man on drugs?

What about the eye witness who saw flight 93 fly into the ground intact?

What sort of damage do you think 2 sidewinder missiles would cause to a 757?

 

[Jazzz]

Shouldn't this be in the drugs forum?

DGP - the man who thinks a plane flying low and level is performing acrobatic manouvers.

DGP - the man who thinks flight 175 had to be remote controlled because of it's sharp final turn, yet if his aircraft was hijacked would manually flip it upside down to break the hostages necks.

DGP a man on drugs?

What about the eye witness who saw flight 93 fly into the ground intact?

What sort of damage do you think 2 sidewinder missiles would cause to a 757?

First of all we don't know that the Let'sRoll source is De Grand-Pre. That's my speculation.

Eyewitness reports - at least six saw a mystery jet in the vicinity - do not support it crashing. Have a look at the link in my second post. Debris was scattered over an eight mile radius which would support a shootdown.

editor you state that you give credence to the theory that flight 93 was shot down, regardless of your opinions about the other stuff. That's good for this thread. Well, here's an actual named pilot. If it ain't him, we can surely expect a denial.

 

[Jangla]

What about the eye witness who saw flight 93 fly into the ground intact?

Be interested in a link to that. As I remember it, the craft was spread over an 8 mile area.

 

[WouldBe]

Be interested in a link to that. As I remember it, the craft was spread over an 8 mile area.

It was linked to in one of the previous threads. The witness was stood on one of the hills near the crash site. The plane flew about 50ft over his head with no mention of smoke or flame coming from the plane and he saw it fly into the ground.

 

[editor]

Here's the info:

Lee Purbaugh saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there,
right above my head – maybe 50ft up," says Purbaugh, who works at a
scrapyard overlooking the crash site. "It was only a split second but it
looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock
from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge
explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly
have survived."

No mention of missiles blasting the plane to pieces beforehand then...

 

[WouldBe]

Thats the one ed.

A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;

Yet the aircraft was still intact at the point of crash at 10:06 according to the eyewitness!!!!!!!!!

GDP claims the 'happy hooligans' were on a 'temporary assignment' to Langley airforce base. If you check out the website for the happy hooligans a detachment was moved to Langley permanantly from it's previous base in California sometime in 2000. So GDP is not even clued up on where various units are stationed never mind anything else

 

[Jangla]

It was linked to in one of the previous threads. The witness was stood on one of the hills near the crash site. The plane flew about 50ft over his head with no mention of smoke or flame coming from the plane and he saw it fly into the ground.

And the transcripts from ATC state that at least two aircraft in the area did[/d] see smoke billowing from the plane as it went through cloud cover. Very confusing.

 

[WouldBe]

And the transcripts from ATC state that at least two aircraft in the area did see smoke billowing from the plane as it went through cloud cover. Very confusing.

But even if the witness on the ground is wrong about smoke coming from the aircraft then that still makes 3 witnesses that saw the plane intact even though GDP claims the aircraft was destroyed in mid air.

Theres a big difference between 'destroyed in mid air' and smoke coming / billowing from the aircraft.

 

[Pickman's model]

in the interview it's alleged the plane was shot down by dakota air national guard, in the article at the top it looks like a regular air force unit. i think they're both bollox stories, though.

 

[Jazzz]

Here's the info:

<Lee Purbaugh account>

No mention of missiles blasting the plane to pieces beforehand then...

...this eyewitness (along with SIX others) also states that he saw a mystery white jet in the vicinity

"Yes, there was another plane," Lee said. "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon." Daily Mirror

from the same article...

India Lake also contributes to the view there was an explosion on board before the Newark-San Francisco flight came down. Debris rained down on the lake - a curious feat if, as the US government insists, there was no mid-air explosion and the plane was intact until it hit the ground.

"It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth," Tom said. "The authorities say it was blown here by the wind." But there was only a 10mph breeze and you were a mile and a half away? Tom raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: "Yeah, that's what they reckon."

Light debris was also found eight miles away in New Baltimore. A section of engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile -from the crash site. Theorists point out a Sidewinder heat-seeking missile attacks the hottest part of aircraft - the engine.

 

[editor]

...this eyewitness (along with SIX others) also states that he saw a mystery white jet in the vicinity.

Yes. But the nearest eye witness categorically stated that the plane had not been blasted to bits by sidewinder missiles and "destroyed" in mid air as your original article clearly claims.

 

[fela fan]

One must be very careful about dismissing an eyewitness, but i'd like to look at his account of what he saw: here it is again from editor's post, just for ease of reference with the same post...


Lee Purbaugh saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there,
right above my head – maybe 50ft up," says Purbaugh, who works at a
scrapyard overlooking the crash site. "It was only a split second but it
looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock
from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge
explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly
have survived."

So, this chap's in a field. He hears and sees the plane when it's about 50 ft above his head. That will be roughly 56 ft above the ground. And from what he says it seems he only heard the plane for the first time when it was above his head. This seems strange, why did it have to get within 50 ft of his head before he heard it? Was it making no noise before? Wouldn't a plane coming down to crash be making a fucking massive noise?

What is even stranger though from his account is that from that moment he saw it - ie 56 ft above ground level, and right above him - it managed to rock from side to side, and it managed a dip and then a dive, all at 56 ft above the ground. That is an awful lot of movement for a plane going from 56 ft to zero ft, which presumably was descending at quite some speed.

Sorry, there's nothing behind what i'm saying, but his account seems not quite right.

 

[fela fan]

And indeed, reading it again he did say it was loud:

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound"

So, the plane was so loud, yet he only heard it once it had gotten to be directly above his head. How come he never heard it before it got to 50 ft above his head if it was so incredibly loud?

 

[editor]

And indeed, reading it again he did say it was loud:

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound"

So, the plane was so loud, yet he only heard it once it had gotten to be directly above his head. How come he never heard it before it got to 50 ft above his head if it was so incredibly loud?

Who knows?

He could have been deep in a forest, he could have been in a valley, listening the the Bee Gees, driving a tractor or he could have been sticking his head in a rabbit hole.

But I see no reason at all to find anything odd about what he said or any reason to suppose he would lie.

But as the nearest eye witness, he has categorically stated that the plane had not been blasted to bits by sidewinder missiles or "destroyed" in mid air as previously claimed.

Unless you've any proof that he's a liar, then you'll have to accept that the exciting 'plane blasted to bits mid-air by sidewinder missiles' theory is a work of fantasy.

 

[Pickman's model]

One must be very careful about dismissing an eyewitness, but i'd like to look at his account of what he saw: here it is again from editor's post, just for ease of reference with the same post...


Lee Purbaugh saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there,
right above my head – maybe 50ft up," says Purbaugh, who works at a
scrapyard overlooking the crash site. "It was only a split second but it
looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock
from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge
explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly
have survived."

So, this chap's in a field. He hears and sees the plane when it's about 50 ft above his head. That will be roughly 56 ft above the ground. And from what he says it seems he only heard the plane for the first time when it was above his head. This seems strange, why did it have to get within 50 ft of his head before he heard it? Was it making no noise before? Wouldn't a plane coming down to crash be making a fucking massive noise?

What is even stranger though from his account is that from that moment he saw it - ie 56 ft above ground level, and right above him - it managed to rock from side to side, and it managed a dip and then a dive, all at 56 ft above the ground. That is an awful lot of movement for a plane going from 56 ft to zero ft, which presumably was descending at quite some speed.

Sorry, there's nothing behind what i'm saying, but his account seems not quite right.

of course, scrapyards are just as quiet as libraries, aren't they?

 

[editor]

of course, scrapyards are just as quiet as libraries, aren't they?

I forgot that he was in a scrapyard.

So that completely trashes fela's desperate attempt to rubbish the eye witness account then!

 

[Jangla]

But as the nearest eye witness, he has categorically stated that the plane had not been blasted to bits by sidewinder missiles or "destroyed" in mid air as previously claimed.

Unless you've any proof that he's a liar, then you'll have to accept that the exciting 'plane blasted to bits mid-air by sidewinder missiles' theory is a work of fantasy.

Debris 8 miles away from the crash site suggests there was at least some sort of explosion in the air. With 10mph winds it would be physically impossible for that debris to make it that far away. ATC transcripts agree that there was smoke issuing from the craft when it was airborne.

Is it possible that a missile was fired, the warhead didn't trigger (or was set not to trigger, even) but the resultant damage from the physical impact resulted in it's downfall?

Seems possible and would explain much of the apparent inconsitencies in eye witness reports.

 

[Random]

It could have been hit by missiles yet not 'blasted to bits'.

Plus I definitely remember the first reports during 11 Sep reporting that the plane had been 'forced down' in Pennsylvania. Anyone else rmember that language being used on the TV?

 

[editor]

It could have been hit by missiles yet not 'blasted to bits'.

The article linked in the first post categorically claims that: "A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958".

Note the words, "destroyed it in mid flight".

Not 'damaged'. Not 'clipped'. But destroyed.