The biggest distraction: The shootdown of Flight 93

[Woody Box]

Killtown is absolutely right.

The myth of the half-heartedly rejected shootdown allowed the officials to pretend that they tried to hide a problematic, but morally justified order from the public.

That's why investigations have been obstructed! That's why air controllers were not allowed to speak publicly about the last minutes of Flight 93! The government didn't want to let the truth out that the plane was shot down! That's for those who think the government has something to hide!

C'mon, friends. Don't fall into this trap. If there was something shot down at Shanksville, it was certainly not Flight 93 or another airliner. The little "shootdown" mystery was invented to distract from the big mystery:

MIHOP!

[MrSammo1]

1. don't believe anything

Rumsfeld says.

;o)

[Andre II]

2. Couldn't agree more!

The crash site is faked!
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.1161

[Tim Howells]

3. Another Possibility

I suspect that 93 was shot down after the passengers successfully took
control of the aircraft. I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were fully
aware of what was happening on the plane and ordered the shootdown
because they did not want any surviving witnesses to exactly what had
happened - i.e. for coverup purposes. As I recall, David Ray Griffith
argues along this line in Omissions and Distortions.

Tim Howells

[mirandapriestly]

4. That's what I kind of thought, but...

what happened to the plane?

[MrSammo1]

5. Shame on you........

for bringing reality into the subject!

[petgoat]

14. Griffin argues that in The New Pearl Harbor.

See Chapter 3. It's very short.

"The main problem raised by the first three flights—aside from the question of the identity of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon—was the fact that aircraft that should have been shot down were not. The fate of UA Flight 93, say critics, presents us with the opposite problem: A plane that should not have been shot down was."

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[spooked911]

6. Right on. Another point is that there are no witnesses

to fighter jets chasing a commercial jet and shooting it.

The shoot-down story is a myth, probably a psy-op, and certainly a distraction.

[rman]

8. There are some reports

(well, one for sure) of another plane in that area around that time - a small white plane flying at low level.

[Andre II]

7. In view of the current discussion

The question if UA 93 was shot down is of no real importance.

A shot down does not explain:

The strange crash site:

Why people witness a plane coming in from northwest to the crash site and also one from the east.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x37066

The raining debris on Indian Lake which UA 93 didn't cross.

The problems of cell phone calls:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x48029

The strange occurence of TWO planes taken several times for UA 93:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x77237

The strange evacuations of Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Johnstown Airport:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x26505
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x26158

The huge contradictions in the phone calls:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x61839

The shape of the crash sites strongely indicates a crash of around 90°. Yet the plane overflew horizontally the forest before the crash and was witnessed by many flying at an altitude of 100 - 500 feet which is clearly insufficient for a 90° turn.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x30634

Please note that only one witness is known who actually saw the crash.

[Woody Box]

11. Lee Purbaugh?

Please note that only one witness is known who actually saw the crash.

Is Lee Purbaugh this witness?

I've heard some funny stories about this guy - f.i. that he began his job just before 9/11 and left soon afterwards. Am I right, Andre? You certainly know the stuff better than me.

[Andre II]

13. Thanks for the flowers!

:toast:
btw I like you avatar!

Yeah, indeed Lee Purbaugh was on his second day of work on 911 and is the only known witness of the crash.
He was all over the press in the days after 911 but somehow disappeared from the news. I don't know when he had his last day of work in Shanksville ....
Credible witness?
Just note please that there is only one witness of the plane crashing and there is reason to wonder about the credibility of this witness. Everybody who believes it is impossible that the plane didn't crash in view of the witnesses should realize that there was only one witness.

[mirandapriestly]

15. How convenient,

thanks for that tidbit, I didn't know that.

[Shoestring]

9. Shootdown was the backup story?

I wonder if the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down was planted as a kind of contingency plan, in order to create a backup story. In other words, the planners of 9/11 first and foremost wanted to create a story of passengers fighting back against their hijackers, as a piece of propaganda to make Americans feel that ordinary U.S. citizens could take on evil terrorists, showing amazing bravery and self-sacrifice, and ultimately defeating the terrorists. (It really was a story tailor-made for Hollywood.)

However, in case problems arose on 9/11 with the fabricating of evidence suggesting this is what happened, or in case there was an outcry over the failure of the U.S. Air Force to shoot down any of the four planes, some evidence was also planted to suggest that a plane was shot down near Shanksville. Therefore, if problems arose, the backup story could be reverted to and the authorities could claim that fighters shot down Flight 93. So, when Donald Rumsfeld made his famous bungle in 2004, referring to the people who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania," he was just muddled over which cover-story they'd decided to go with.

If you look at the photos of the supposed Flight 93 crash site, here for example:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html
... it seems pretty obvious that no intact plane crashed at this site. Yet it doesn't look like a fragmented plane, shot down in mid-air by a missile, crashed either. It just looks like, somehow or other, someone tried to fake the crash-scene of a 757. (And did a terrible job of it too!)

Add to this the serious questions that have been raised about the phone calls made from the flight, and whether they were faked, it just seems to me that the whole Flight 93 thing--both the official story AND the evidence that it was shot down--was faked.

This is my theory at least!

[mirandapriestly]

10. You could be right

in view of Cheney's remarks about heroism before he could have possibly known what was happening. (I started a thread on it) Very suspicious.
Also, were the remarks "muddled" slips? or intentional? So that people would think they "figured out" that the planes were shot down, when actually the truth is much worse?
A tangled web...

[Sinti]

12. Strikes me as just more mud in the water

We can only speculate as to whether it was shot down, or not. Such speculation doesn't serve any meaningful purpose. It's not as bad as the poisoned pills of pods or holograms, but it really is a distraction.

MIHOP or not, the plane being shot down or not proves nothing. They could have shot it down either way. They could have faked the crash scene (that may sound impossible to some people, but it really isn't), and therefore didn't need to shoot a plane down, or could have shot another drone plane down. Boys with box-cutters could have actually could have actually hijacked the plane, and the passengers could have taken it over, then been shot down, or just crashed (though the debris field indicates it didn't all go down as the government says). The shoot down seems relatively immaterial to the most important question.

Unlike the Pentagon crash, if MIHOP is true, there would have been good reason not to allow this plane to just crash into the ground. The investigative and recovery teams would have expected to find the bodies of hijackers, no bodies, the story falls apart very quickly. So the plane at least had to be completely fragmented (if not something more devious), no major body parts, no "identifiable on site" remains.

Do you know any plane crash investigators?

[cpousnret]

16. i would like to know

why passengers on the other flights didn`t attempt to attack their hijackers,since they knew the obvious