Anyone still believe rumor Flight 93 shot down? [Archive]

noesis

10-03-2009, 11:48 PM

supertzar

11-03-2009, 02:41 AM

That is an interesting question from a NLP viewpoint.

killtown

11-03-2009, 04:10 AM

Flight 93 was my area of obsession more so that NY or the Pentagon after 9/11 but my brain has conviently filed away all the info i researched! Without going back and re-visiting it ... i just dont believe there was any evidence or at least enough thereof to convince me a plane crashed there.
You should join us over at 911movement to keep Shanks research on the forefront. Seems like just me and 'Terrorcell' are only one's interested in Shanks research these days.

Btw, did you watch my Hoodwinked at Shanksville (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/) series? The skeptics have never been able to debunk them.

noesis

11-03-2009, 10:22 PM

Fantastic vids Killtown ... your site was actually one of my favourites about 93 - how weird is that! I dont know how much use i'd be to you ... been out of the loop for a few years. Oh and i also should confess that i watched both Flight 93 and United 93 and bawled like a baby :D

killtown

05-08-2010, 08:16 PM

macgyver1968

05-08-2010, 08:22 PM

I don't believe Flight 93 was shot down.

killtown

05-08-2010, 09:12 PM

I don't believe Flight 93 was shot down.
Ok "truther." Btw, since one of your buddies asked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=181538), here ya go (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74642)..

macgyver1968

05-08-2010, 09:31 PM

Hey...just answering the OP.

ultima1

06-08-2010, 09:42 AM

I have a FOIA request in for a declassified version of a document that states Flight 93 may have been shot down.

Its either Flight 93 or Delta Fligth 1989 that was confused for Flight 93.

krakhead

06-08-2010, 11:07 AM

That is an interesting question from a NLP viewpoint.

+1 It would be hard to have phrased it in a more loaded manner.

policestate

06-08-2010, 12:42 PM

I have a FOIA request in for a declassified version of a document that states Flight 93 may have been shot down.

Its either Flight 93 or Delta Fligth 1989 that was confused for Flight 93.

Do you have (about) $1000 ?

Because this is currently underway, and has been to court.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-08/federal-court-rejects-911-foia-records-fee-waiver-request

the FOIA fees amounted to $864.

ultima1

06-08-2010, 01:33 PM

Do you have (about) $1000 ?

Sorry but my FOIA request is not for the FBI but NSA.

Also it has to deal with the interception of an airliner by fighter, something that debates the 9/11 commission report that states that no fighter were near any of the 9/11 planes.

policestate

06-08-2010, 01:36 PM

Good. How long have you been waiting?

ultima1

06-08-2010, 01:43 PM

Good. How long have you been waiting?

Since September 2008, Here is the letter from NSA in refereance to my FOIA.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1281094901

policestate

06-08-2010, 02:09 PM

wow in UK, we have a 30 day FOIA 'law'. If they respond, we can chase it up through MPs.

Have they not given you any time frame for a response?

ultima1

06-08-2010, 02:20 PM

Have they not given you any time frame for a response?

Well they have stated there are other government agencies involved and have to wait for them to ok the information.

Basically i believe it comes down to the fact that a platform that was used to collect the information may be classified.

policestate

06-08-2010, 02:26 PM

Well, I hope you get a result soon.

ultima1

06-08-2010, 06:06 PM

Well, I hope you get a result soon.

Yes, But if it does turn out that at least one of the planes was intercepted it would show more discrepancies with the official 9/11 commission report.

killtown

06-08-2010, 08:15 PM

I have a FOIA request in for a declassified version of a document that states Flight 93 may have been shot down.
Say it says that on the FOIA, can you give me your best guess where the plane was when it was shot and details of the crash? I just don't see any evidence that matches a shoot down when you really look at all the details and put them together.

ultima1

06-08-2010, 10:00 PM

Say it says that on the FOIA, can you give me your best guess where the plane was when it was shot and details of the crash? I just don't see any evidence that matches a shoot down when you really look at all the details and put them together.

Well i cannot go into detail of what the document states because it is classified.

Basically it states that a plane was intercepted by fighters, this contridicts the offiial 9/11 commission report.

killtown

07-08-2010, 12:07 AM

Well i cannot go into detail of what the document states because it is classified.

Basically it states that a plane was intercepted by fighters, this contridicts the offiial 9/11 commission report.
Well I'm curious what you think happened if a plane was shot down, the details of its shoot down and its subsequent crash, regardless of what the document says.

ultima1

07-08-2010, 03:02 PM

Well I'm curious what you think happened if a plane was shot down, the details of its shoot down and its subsequent crash, regardless of what the document says.

Well they had the right to shoot the plane down, they just did not want to tell the public because of all the things going on that day.

There are some signs of a crash at Shankesville, like the 2 different debris fields and the engine core found a distance away.

killtown

07-08-2010, 07:22 PM

Well they had the right to shoot the plane down, they just did not want to tell the public because of all the things going on that day.

There are some signs of a crash at Shankesville, like the 2 different debris fields and the engine core found a distance away.
Regardless if they had the right too or not, I just want some hard physical evidence of a shoot down.

Of the 2 debris fields and reports of an engine core/part past the crater, if those are both the result of a shoot down, then that means the plane had to crash PAST the crater and that means they had to stage the crater area which then means they had to plan the shoot down and staging the crater in advance which seems highly implausible.

ultima1

08-08-2010, 06:06 AM

which then means they had to plan the shoot down and staging the crater in advance which seems highly implausible.

Since you want evidence of a shootdown, do you have evidence of a staged crash site?

killtown

09-08-2010, 09:22 PM

Since you want evidence of a shootdown
Yes, and I'm still waiting. What concrete evidence do you have of a shoot-down?

ultima1

10-08-2010, 09:34 AM

Yes, and I'm still waiting. What concrete evidence do you have of a shoot-down?

Well as of now we have the 2 debris fields and engine core found away from the crash site.

Now what concrete evidence do you have to debate this and show a planted crash site?

killtown

10-08-2010, 10:20 PM

Well as of now we have the 2 debris fields and engine core found away from the crash site.
And I've already explained why those couldn't be from the result of a shoot down if the plane's trajectory came from the official path. A plane would have had to come from the OPPOSITE way to support those two pieces of evidence.

Now what concrete evidence do you have to debate this and show a planted crash site?
You know where to find my evidence on this. You always seem to be side-stepping from your shoot down theory.

ultima1

11-08-2010, 12:55 PM

And I've already explained why those couldn't be from the result of a shoot down if the plane's trajectory came from the official path. A plane would have had to come from the OPPOSITE way to support those two pieces of evidence.

You mean you tried to explain, but have no real evidence.

You always seem to be side-stepping from your shoot down theory.

NO, you are always running away from debating me with facts and evidence. Why is that?

noewhan

11-08-2010, 03:55 PM

You should join us over at 911movement to keep Shanks research on the forefront. Seems like just me and 'Terrorcell' are only one's interested in Shanks research these days.

Btw, did you watch my Hoodwinked at Shanksville (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/) series? The skeptics have never been able to debunk them.

The link seems interesting and I'll watch the videos. Just a suggestion though, some of the videos stream as soon as you open the page. It's frustrating, probably better off as links. Ahh! Stop the music lol where is it coming from?!

camreeno

11-08-2010, 10:30 PM

The Flight 93 crash didn't happen to begin with. A ditch was dug in a convenient location and they either send some sort of missile or small drone plane to the location to give the impression that a commercial plane crashed. All the four commercial planes that were supposedly hijacked didn't crash, but rather they were all landed at seperate undisclosed airports. Flight 93 landed in Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11 (google it) for example.

There really is no evidence a commercial plane crashed at all in Shanksville. It's all a joke. Furthermore we can see from old photos that they actually dug the ditch many years PRIOR to 9/11, going back even as far as 1994 - meaning they were planning this long in advance, as well as annuling any of the government's claims (assuming the likelihood of a real plane crashing in that exact spot is virtually zero).

The whole discussion of whether or not the plane was shot down doesn't matter. The fact is it didn't crash in Shanksville and the government's story is bullshit. As to what exactly happened to all the planes, it's superfluous really, as just knowing that 9/11 was an inside job is the most you need to know.

ultima1

12-08-2010, 01:36 PM

Flight 93 landed in Cleveland Hopkins airport on 9/11 (google it) for example.

Sorry but as proven many times, it was Delta Flight 1989 (that was confused for Flight 93) that landed at Cleveland.

killtown

14-08-2010, 08:29 PM

You mean you tried to explain, but have no real evidence.

NO, you are always running away from debating me with facts and evidence. Why is that?
Speaking of running away! You dodge the evidence I show you that it couldn't possibly be a shootdown unless they staged the scene along with a shoot down since debris falling from a plane would drop BEFORE where ever the plane crashes.

I've asked you to explain where you think the plane was shot and how it crashed. Until you answer, I won't answer any more of your questions.

ultima1

16-08-2010, 09:42 AM

Speaking of running away! You dodge the evidence I show you that it couldn't possibly be a shootdown unless they staged the scene along with a shoot down since debris falling from a plane would drop BEFORE where ever the plane crashes.

What training and experience do you have about how a planes debris falls when shot down?

Until you answer, I won't answer any more of your questions.

Oh do not cry, i have explaned many times. Its the simple fact and evidence of the 2 distinct debris fields and the engine core.

killtown

16-08-2010, 11:33 PM

What training and experience do you have about how a planes debris falls when shot down?
You only need an elementary-grade training to know what gravity does to pieces of debris breaking off of a plane that is still in the air.

Its the simple fact and evidence of the 2 distinct debris fields and the engine core.
And the only way that could be is if the plane crashed like in New Baltimore and that would mean they planned to not only do a shoot-down, but also planned to stage the scene which is ludicrous to think.

There was no shoot down. IMO, that was disinfo to cover for no plane crashing and I don't call things disinfo very often.

ultima1

17-08-2010, 01:20 PM

You only need an elementary-grade training to know what gravity does to pieces of debris breaking off of a plane that is still in the air.

So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about.

There was no shoot down.

Well according to a governemnt focument that might be debated.

killtown

18-08-2010, 05:55 AM

So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about.
Now stooping to the level of a JREFer with the ad homs? Believe a shoot down happened if it makes you happy. Later.

If anyone else can explain how a shoot down could fit the physical evidence, I'm all ears, er eyes.

ultima1

18-08-2010, 08:08 AM

Now stooping to the level of a JREFer with the ad homs? Believe a shoot down happened if it makes you happy. Later.

Well i believe in a shoot down because i have seen a government document (that would hold up in court) that states at least one plane was intercepted.

This debates the official 9/11 commission report that stated no planes were intercepted.

So unless you can prtoduce actual, verifiable evidence of no shoot down i have to go with actual evidence we have now.

If anyone else can explain how a shoot down could fit the physical evidence, I'm all ears, er eyes.

You mean the physical evidence that fits more of a shoot down scene then a crash scene ?

How does crash produce to distinct debris fields and a engine core found so far away from the site?

dan duchaine

18-08-2010, 02:33 PM

The original flight 93 landed at cleveland.

ultima1

19-08-2010, 12:37 PM

The original flight 93 landed at cleveland.

WRONG, that was Delta Flgiht 1989 that was confused for Flight 93 for a while.

dave52

19-08-2010, 01:54 PM

I believe two flights landed. One of them was definately Delta 1989, the other could've been (and was definately rumoured to be) Flight 93.

ultima1

19-08-2010, 02:22 PM

the other could've been (and was definately rumoured to be) Flight 93.

What is your source for this?

911thology

20-08-2010, 07:27 PM

If so, where do you think Flight 93 crashed after it was supposedly shot down?

Here is a recently discovered ORIGINAL CONTEMPORARY 9/11 news report by FOX where it is OPENLY STATED (moreover, twice) that F-16 from the DC National Air Guard SHOT DOWN the 4th passenger aircraft (presumably Flight 93 - since that one is belived to be 'the 4th one'):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMrF1caOmOw

Found only yesterday. New hot stuff.

Enjoy.

rodin

20-08-2010, 07:43 PM

I'm bumping this because I see some truthers still think Flight 93 was shot down and I'd respectfully like to know more about the details of how they think Flight 93 allegedly crashed after they thought it was shot down.

Mark Bingham the homosexual hero...

...is a total fiction. Flight 93 probably never flew or if it did landed on one of those Israeli controlled air bases like the ones over which the WTC flight switches were made. Like Lewin and that other female Israeli agent in the other plane had the pilot land as part of the NORAD exercise. Insiders get payoffs and new identities innocents donate their organs to Tel Aviv nothing wasted business is business

ultima1

22-08-2010, 02:39 PM

Here is a recently discovered ORIGINAL CONTEMPORARY 9/11 news report by FOX where it is OPENLY STATED (moreover, twice) that F-16 from the DC National Air Guard SHOT DOWN the 4th passenger aircraft (presumably Flight 93 - since that one is belived to be 'the 4th one'):

For one it does not say the plane was shot down, it says it was intercepted. Big difference.