If flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania why lie about it?

[madison2000]

If there was ever a situation which justified taking down a commericial aircraft this was it. The people who live in the area know that something more than just a plane crash happened. Why not tell the truth- to help create the perception that the military was doing SOMETHING instead of NOTHING to protect the country on September 11?

[Blackthorn]

1. ...

Because it begs the question why weren't jets sent to intercept the other planes? Looking at this chart

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

Each plane had jets en-route to intercept it, but none made it in time. I think that in itself is suspicious. Considering the response times that have been given, particulary 77 and 93, both of which were in the air for 50 minutes before crashing, it would pose more questions if only one of the planes was enganged and shot down and not the other. By letting Flight 93 crash "on its own", it removes any inconsistencies. There are no messy questions, ignorance can be plead.

[madison2000]

2. and we can remember the story of the brave passengers who wrestled

the hijackers for control of the plane and allowed it to crash into the ground instead of hitting another target of symbolic importance...

[John Doe II]

3. Problem is

the plane the eyewitnesses saw was coming in from the west. The debris and the raining confetti that might indicate a shoot down was found east of the crash site (Indian Lake, New Baltimore). Therefore the plane from the west that officially is considered being UA 93 can't have been shot down. Eyewitnesses would have seen it and debris would have rained down there but not on Indian Lake. This plane never crossed Indian Lake. But where the hell does the debris come from?? If it is from a shoot down. Then we have to take into consideration that the debris came from another plane and everything around this crash was preplaned. No possibility that there was a last minute decision to shoot down. Please see for further information:
"...and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye" and "The official UA 93 theory is a big lie".

[Old and In the Way]

4. If any of the official facts of the 9/11 story become refuted that

would make all events of the day open to question.

[paulthompson]

5. IMHO, the main reason not to admit it is...

That there were so many calls from the passengers saying they were going to take over the plane (bear with me, and see where this leads). These comments started around twenty minutes earlier, and on phone calls that were being directly patched through to higher authorities. For instance at 9:45 Tom Burnett tells his wife Deena that the passengers are making plans to take over the plane. This phone call has been patched through to higher authorities (we're not sure exactly to who) for so long already that her house was already something of a circus, with a policeman there in person, keeping order. The FBI at least had been listening in on this line since at least 9:34.

Also at 9:45 Todd Beamer tells of similar plan on a phone call that is also being patched through to the FBI. Some minutes earlier we know of an instance of the FBI talking to a flight controller about Flight 93 based on information from these kinds of calls. Mentions of a takeover plan proliferate from then on, and many of these other calls are being monitored too.

Then, it appears that the passengers had actually taken over the cockpit or were close to it. So if the plane was shot down, the military likely didn't shoot down a terrorist controlled plane, but a plane that had just thrown off the hijackers. And they had plenty of time to know that such a takeover plan was in effect.

That sure would cast a whole different light on the "let's roll" story, wouldn't it? And think of the billions of dollars in lawsuits in an embarassing trial that could drag on for years.

In fact, some conspiracy theorists would argue that the very reason the plane was shot down was precisely because the passengers took control of the plane. Imagine if they'd been able to land that plane with living hijackers aboard. Who knows what might have happened then or what those hijackers might have said.

Keep in mind also that the authorities COULD have communicated directly to the passengers on the plane instead of just listening in. They could have passed messages like, "You have five minutes to take over the plane, then we're going to shoot it down," or the like. But they didn't.

[k-robjoe]

6. You have a PM n/t

[egbtpl]

7. In other words

Passengers subdue hijackers, take over the flight = Things aren't going as planned, better shoot it down.

[MrSammo1]

8. If

there was a passenger jet at all?

[Old and In the Way]

9. Question Paul-

We know that there were simulated exercises underway on 9/11 testing the very scenario that was actually occurring. I believe there were commercial airliners that were tied into these exercises. Do you have any info on whether any/some/all of the 4 planes involved were part of the exercises underway?

I'm curious as to why this question wasn't asked in the 9/11 hearings...

[paulthompson]

10. No

I don't have the answer to those questions. However, I am finding out new things about the war games, and hope to publish an essay about it soon.

I would find it extremely unlikely that any plane full of random citizens would be secretly part of a wargame. A lot of people in the military would find that very strange, to say the least! But there was a war game being planned before 9/11 that would have involved the hijacking of two real passenger airliners (the only passengers being part of the exercise), but that wasn't scheduled to occur until 2002.

But what I have seen is numerous military games taking fighters away from being able to respond on 9/11, and the exercises resulting in confusion over what was real and what was exercise, including the existence of false blips on radar screens until after 9 AM.

[madison2000]

11. The conversations with passengers on cell phones

became one of the most well known parts of the whole story- including interviews with family. I did not know FBI was listening in- it always seemed unlikely to me as things were so disorganized and chaotic. I sort of assumed the military shot the plane down without having any knowledge of a passenger uprising, then the powers that write the cover stories quickly realized their mistake and denied it.

[John Doe II]

14. Important question!

I'll open a thread for this.

[DulceDecorum]

12. Bush ordered a Canadian NORAD general to down Flight 93

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.

That's why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/23/940281-cp.html

Got that from here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3173333#3173379

As for Canadian sovereignty ....

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci has repeatedly called for Canada to increase its military spending, recently itemizing a shopping list of goods the federal government should buy for its ailing Forces.
On Wednesday, Cellucci said Washington is encouraged by what he described as a "substantial increase" in proposed military spending.
"This is something we've been respectfully suggesting," he said.
"The Canadian Forces are quite good and it's important that they have the resources they need to continue to do the job both here in North America and around the globe."
http://www.940news.com/news.php?cat=9&id=n022363A

[DulceDecorum]

13. CORRECTION: make that a plane heading towards Washington

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.
http://www.canoe.ca/Error/404_cnews.html