Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rumsfeld said Flight 93 shot down

Andy the Don said:
Er why..?? There appeared to be no reason from what I have heard or read that flight 93 was brought down by a missile. One reason being that the wreckage (or what would have remained from a plane slamming into the ground) Had it been a missile strike the plane would have broken up in mid air. therefore the debris would have been spread across a wide area. It was not, it was located in the one area.
Click to expand...
Impeccable logic Andy the Don!

The "black box" flight data recorder was located at 8:25 p.m. Friday in a crater created by the crash 25 feet below the earth"s surface and was immediately sent to labs for testing, Crowley said. While the results of these tests may not be available for weeks, workers are continuing to clean debris from the crash, found as far from the site as New Baltimore, eight miles away. source
Click to expand...

Yep pretty small area there.
 
Jazzz said:
Yep pretty small area there.
Click to expand...
Drexl32.jpg
 
districtline said:
why would rumsfeld talk about the plane being shot down over pennsylvania if it wasn't shot down?
Click to expand...
But it was just a slip - which doesn't mean it's true.
 
districtline said:
why would rumsfeld talk about the plane being shot down over pennsylvania if it wasn't shot down?
Click to expand...

maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, he meant to say 'brought down' - and came out with 'shot down', which is historically a more common way for a plane to come down due to hostile action?
 
Let me do the punctuation a bit better.

"... imagine the kind of world we would face: if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul; if the people who did the bombing in Spain; or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennysylvania, attacked the Pentagon... " Rumsfeld fesses up
 
Andy the Don said:
Er why..?? There appeared to be no reason from what I have heard or read that flight 93 was brought down by a missile. One reason being that the wreckage (or what would have remained from a plane slamming into the ground) Had it been a missile strike the plane would have broken up in mid air. therefore the debris would have been spread across a wide area. It was not, it was located in the one area.
Click to expand...
That might depend on the type of missile. I would imagine that a heat seeking missile with a smallish warhead (say something intended for other fighter planes) might conceivably only destroy the engine it had locked onto, and maybe also the wing that engine was attached to.
 
But the debris WAS spread over a wide area - an eight-mile radius. I wonder what ATD makes of that?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
That might depend on the type of missile. I would imagine that a heat seeking missile with a smallish warhead (say something intended for other fighter planes) might conceivably only destroy the engine it had locked onto, and maybe also the wing that engine was attached to.
Click to expand...
But would 'they' risk firing a missile designed for smaller planes?
 
Jazzz said:
But the debris WAS spread over a wide area - an eight-mile radius. I wonder what ATD makes of that?
Click to expand...
What percentage of the debris was 'spread over a wide area,' Jazzz?
 
Actually I've always believe that it was shot down. And I'm no comspiraloon.

My reasons are:

I remember on the days after it happened that a few details made me think that. The main one was that there were two lots of debris. There was a small amount of debris about a mile away from the crash site. Now as the plane was in one piece when it crashed i always wondered what cause this secon debris field.

The only logical conclusionI sould come up with was that it was shot down. I would totally understand if it was shot down.
 
look at the lady in the background. as soon as he says her twitches like she cant believe what she just heard.

not thats any basis for truth or anything :rolleyes: ;)
 
editor said:
But would 'they' risk firing a missile designed for smaller planes?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd think that would depend on what was available.

I'm assuming here that we're talking about whichever air defence fighters or even ground weapons were able to get the shot in, rather than a conspiracy which carefully planned to shoot the flight down and hence could select the optimimal missile for their nefairious purposes.

I find it reasonably plausible that they shot this flight down and then lied about it simply because their PR guys didn't think it looked good on TV and preferred the 'heroic passengers' narrative.
 
editor said:
What percentage of the debris was 'spread over a wide area,' Jazzz?
Click to expand...
hahaha you are demanding to know percentage statistics!!! To three decimal places, doubtless :D
 
I don't hold with conspiracy theories in general. However I recall at the time the news coming through very patchy, and details were slow and contradictory emerging. Also unlike the remote controlled lizard planes or the other 911 conspiracies - this has more the hallmarks of humanity and governments, ie. a panicked but not entirely unreasonable response to a crisis. the response is politcally unsustainable and therefore needs to be buried.
 
I've got my toast ready, those beans look to be nice and hot. :) They weren't worms after all, just the usual diet.
 
By inverting the colour, I have the truth of it. The beak is actually a clever insertion pointer of the text, proving that it was ISRAEL.

ITWASISRAEL.jpg


*dons tinfoil hat*
 
Idaho said:
I don't hold with conspiracy theories in general. However I recall at the time the news coming through very patchy, and details were slow and contradictory emerging. Also unlike the remote controlled lizard planes or the other 911 conspiracies - this has more the hallmarks of humanity and governments, ie. a panicked but not entirely unreasonable response to a crisis. the response is politcally unsustainable and therefore needs to be buried.
Click to expand...

OK, well maybe, but why couldn't they just come out and say, 'sorry folks we had to shoot down that third plane, just in case'?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I find it reasonably plausible that they shot this flight down and then lied about it simply because their PR guys didn't think it looked good on TV and preferred the 'heroic passengers' narrative.
Click to expand...
Compared to the fucking bonkers drivel about invisible explosives, pods, holograms, instant squads of Mike Yarwoods and the rest of the fruitloop stuff, the notion that the plane was shot down at least comes from a reality approximating the one that everyone else lives in, but I can't say I've seen any compelling evidence for it.
 
editor said:
the notion that the plane was shot down at least comes from a reality approximating the one that everyone else lives in, but I can't say I've seen any compelling evidence for it.
Click to expand...

I found it very odd that a plane thats was deliberately crashed would have a small debris site just over a mile from the crash site. What would case the debris? This is the one thing i remember clearly from the news at the time.

It seems logical to me that the most likely cause was tat it was shot down by the USAF.

Now I should point out I don't believe it was part of some wider conspiracy just a reasonable reaction to the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
2 3
Replies
71
Views
8K
Jazzz
Jazzz
T
Why would Rumsfeld’s say flight 93 was Shot Down over PA
Replies
19
Views
3K
editor
editor
scalyboy
Investigating 9/11 Florida flight training schools
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
mystic pyjamas
mystic pyjamas
T
Pentagon Flight 77 study at last - some questions answered...
Replies
3
Views
1K
linerider
L
Jazzz
Military insider reveals 9/11 stand-down!
2 3
Replies
84
Views
5K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
Back
Top Bottom