• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93 shot down?

Orb

Critical Thinker
O
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
324
Help me convince my husband that flight 93 wasn't shot down by our own military! Or help me eat humble pie!

I tried searching the forum, but couldn't find anything. I know a lot of you are currently debating the "loose brains" bunch, so if you could help me find more info I would greatly appreciate it!

Thanks!
 
If it was shot down there would be a debris field consisting of large chunks. Compare pics of the bombed 747 that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland w/ the crater left by Flight 93. 93 just nose-dived full speed into the ground and disintegrated, a shot-down plane would have had pieces (such as a wing) break off and tumble down largely intact. Too tired to post links or anything right now, but you get the picture.
 
How many people would have to be in on the shoot down?

Do you know how many people service a fighter jet. None of them noticed a missle was missing? Or did every single one of them decide to get in on a mass murder?
 
Honestly valis, I gave him the exact same reason! Here was his answer: Fighter Pilots have "security clearance" (shrug) and probably felt shooting it down was the greater good to prevent more deaths. Also blabbing would be a "career killer". I don't think he thought about the service folks and such.

I just want to say that he doesn't believe the towers were rigged, or the pentagon was bombed, he just heard that Rumsfeld speech and read about the engine of flight 93 being found in a lake far away from the crash site and so believes that we shot down the plane.

The lack of big chunks of debris is a good bit of evidence that should help convince him too. Thanks!
 
Popular Mechanics has a concise 9/11 debunking article. Flight 93 myths are covered on:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y

However, if he has a tendency to believe a conspiracy theory with two pieces of evidence that contradict mountains of evidence to the contrary, then it's unlikely he'll be swayed by a different story that he views as having equal credibility.

If he's a skeptic, he'd do research on his own, search the web, try to resolve contradictory "facts", question the veracity of the sources, and come to his own conclusion, rather than just take what was presented to him. If he's convinced that there's a coverup, there's no hope. (Evidence that supports his thesis is accepted, evidence that refutes it has been tinkered/invented/altered in the course of the coverup.)

- Timothy
 
At Lockerbie, intact bodies were found miles away from the main crash site, while passengers' belongings and other intact debris were found as far away as Northumberland (that's about 50 miles away.)
I was living in Northumberland at the time and was only nine years old, but I remember it very well.
It was really windy in the north-east on that day and parts of the plane, like insulation, silver and yellow, stuck in the trees in the woods where we lived. I collected it all up, along with people's mail, and the odd bit of clothing which we had to hand into the police.
We collected the debris up in black bags and my mother even found someone's driving licence in the hedge just next to our house.
I remember that on the next farm down they had a whole sack of mail that landed in one of their fields.
Click to expand...
Eye-witness reports
Granted, the Lockerbie jumbo came down from a much higher altitude, with no large on-board explosion (the bomb in the baggage hold was relatively small). Nevertheless, had Flight 93 been shot down it would have broken up in the air, with very large pieces of debris over a wide area.
 
Last edited:
Why would the guv'mint admit to mistakenly shooting down one civilian airliner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

Yet lie about shooting down an airliner that they had every justification to destroy?

A cover-up of of the Iran Air Flight 655 incident would have been much easier... it happened on the other side of the world, in a hot war zone, and the wreckage ended up in the water, not on land in the USA. Yet the US guv'mint owned up to the blunder right away.
 
Hey Orb, tell you husband it wasn't shot down because I say so.

What the heck, he believes some whacko, why shouldn't he believe me? I am at least as un-qualified as the whacko.
 
When you read this to your husband, be sure to emphasize "The usual paranoid crap." And draw out the "crap" for as long as possible.
If that doesn't work, deny him sex.
Sacrifices must be made in the war on woo.

Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

"There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things."

Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place."
http://web.archive.org/web/20041101...com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml
 
If he doesn't believe the other 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, then why does he care about how Flight 93 was destroyed? Is he upset that it was shot down? If he is, he needs to get over it, since shooting down the plane would indeed be completely justified (though this did not happen). If he doesn't think shooting the plane down was wrong, then why does he care at all?

Tell him to go out and get some chores done. Geesh.
 
Psiload said:
Why would the guv'mint admit to mistakenly shooting down one civilian airliner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

Yet lie about shooting down an airliner that they had every justification to destroy?

A cover-up of of the Iran Air Flight 655 incident would have been much easier... it happened on the other side of the world, in a hot war zone, and the wreckage ended up in the water, not on land in the USA. Yet the US guv'mint owned up to the blunder right away.
Click to expand...

Ahh but that was during the evil Regean administration. Pres. Bush has reached a new super level of evil; that somehow involves Haliburton at every turn.

Which reminds me, I have been hearing this same paranoid crap my entire life and everyone that belives it talks of how the USA becoming a Nazi hellhole is imminent. I've heard it for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and two Bush's. So when the heck it the totalitarian takeover gonna get here already?
 
A lot of the conspiracy theorists have claimed that the Bush adminstration intentionally prevented the Air Force from shooting down the two planes that hit the WTC. In light of that, I'd think that if they had managed to shoot down Flt 93 they'd readily admit it to help shoot down the other conspiracy theories.
 
Bob Klase said:
A lot of the conspiracy theorists have claimed that the Bush adminstration intentionally prevented the Air Force from shooting down the two planes that hit the WTC. In light of that, I'd think that if they had managed to shoot down Flt 93 they'd readily admit it to help shoot down the other conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
That's the funny thing about it, they claim NORAD stood down to allow the planes to hit the WTC, but then shot down 93 and covered it up.

Of course, if you think that's strange you're just not doing the right kind of "research". :p
 
If he doesn't believe the other 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, then why does he care about how Flight 93 was destroyed? Is he upset that it was shot down? If he is, he needs to get over it, since shooting down the plane would indeed be completely justified (though this did not happen). If he doesn't think shooting the plane down was wrong, then why does he care at all?
Click to expand...

Aside from the rather obvious lack of evidence, this is the other thing that I have always found rather silly about this claim: if the Air Force did shoot down Flight 93, I think the vast majority of Americans would be pretty understanding about it, and the government wouldn't have any real reason to hide it. Given what had already happened that day, had the airplane not crashed as it did, I would hope they would have had the courage to shoot it down rather than let it fly to a large city and crash into another building. As difficult a decision as it would be, I think most people would accept that it would have been the only real choice.

Moreover, it is humerous that Conspiracy Theorists haven't seemed to figure out that the whole "Flight 93" conspiracy theory actually hurts their overall theory, and as such, they have to come up with an even more unlikely explanation for why the government would shoot down an aircraft involved in the operation they planned to begin with.
 
Agreed. I often think that CT is a question of amassing as much "evidence" as they can, to undermine the credibility of the guv'mint. That much of their argumentation is totally contradictory, self-defeating, and injurious to their chosen pet theory doesn't seem to cross their minds.
 
OK, I talked with him about it and showed him the articles you've all supplied (thanks) and he seems to be convinced it wasn't shot down.

What brought on the debate between us was that we saw the trailer for the new movie based on flight 93. He started going off saying it was BS and that we shot down the plane. Needless to say, I was shocked! He's usually a very sceptical person!

His main reason for believing this basically boils down to his distrust for the current Bush administration. He thought that we shot it down, but because of all the cell phone calls and the whole "lets roll" thing, Bush wanted to turn it into a hero story that he could attach himself to. He felt it was more of an image boosting, patriotic thing than a cover up thing.

We live in western PA, about an hour away from where it crashed. Our local papers were full of "eyewitnesses" saying they saw another plane in the area and the coroner reports said there was debris found far from the crash site. This all made him suspicious, but the clincher was the Rumsfeld "slip of the tongue" when he said we would have to shoot down "another" plane.

Anyway, he says thanks for setting him straight. I think that this is the sign of a good skeptic who, after seeing new evidence, will admit he was wrong. He still hates Bush though. :)
 
The military couldn't even keep secret the fact that one of its Rangers was killed by friendly fire in the middle of Afganistan! How the heck are they going to keep a missle attack secret over the USA.

Next to 'That's the Banjo player's Porsche', the phrase 'Let the National Guard do it, those guys can keep a secret!' is one of the least head in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom