Why Flight 93?

[PhantomWolf]

One of the things that always amazes me is that most CTs seem to claim that every part of what happens in their theory was meant to happen that way. With Flight 93 this would mean it was meant to crash at Shanksville. My question is why? What did having a plane crash in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere actually achieve? Why was it necessary? What was gained from it?

Before you answer "So that there would be a Hero story" note that Flight 93 was scheduled to take off from Newark International Airport at 8:00am and so it was running 42 minutes late when it did actually take off. Had it not been for the heavy traffic that delayed it taking off, the passengers would likely have never learned of the other attacks, and thus would never have fought back. For Flight 93 to have been deliberately crashed to have a "Hero Story" then those involved in the conspiracy either had to have the power to create extra air traffic that didn't stand out as abnormal to delay the flight taking off, or else see into the future, both extremely hard, if not impossible.

Now if it was shot down and supposed to be, why the phone calls setting up the passenger revolt? Why not just say that the plane got shutdown over a clear area to prevent it crashing into a city, no one would have said boo about it, the pilot would have been a national hero and the passengers mourned as victims of the hijackers.

If it was an unauthorized shootdown, why not write it up as above? And if this was so, what happened to the building that was packed with explosives waiting for the plane to hit it?

Given the rest of the events that day, if it is taken from the CT perspective, it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit in with anything the so-called conspirators were attempting to do. It added nothing of value to the event that could have been foreseen previous to the day itself.

Only when taken in conjunction with the Hijacker theory does it make sense. That because the plane was delayed, passengers using the Aerophones onboard where able to learn what was in store and thus revolted, causing the hijacker pilots to put the plane into a death dive. That makes sense.

 

[NYCEMT86]

But now you are questioning the Conspiracy Theorists logic, we all know they don't have any. To think like a CT you must excuse all scientific and rational explanations.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

One of the things that always amazes me is that most CTs seem to claim that every part of what happens in their theory was meant to happen that way. With Flight 93 this would mean it was meant to crash at Shanksville. My question is why? What did having a plane crash in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere actually achieve? Why was it necessary? What was gained from it?

Before you answer "So that there would be a Hero story" note that Flight 93 was scheduled to take off from Newark International Airport at 8:00am and so it was running 42 minutes late when it did actually take off. Had it not been for the heavy traffic that delayed it taking off, the passengers would likely have never learned of the other attacks, and thus would never have fought back. For Flight 93 to have been deliberately crashed to have a "Hero Story" then those involved in the conspiracy either had to have the power to create extra air traffic that didn't stand out as abnormal to delay the flight taking off, or else see into the future, both extremely hard, if not impossible.

Now if it was shot down and supposed to be, why the phone calls setting up the passenger revolt? Why not just say that the plane got shutdown over a clear area to prevent it crashing into a city, no one would have said boo about it, the pilot would have been a national hero and the passengers mourned as victims of the hijackers.

If it was an unauthorized shootdown, why not write it up as above? And if this was so, what happened to the building that was packed with explosives waiting for the plane to hit it?

Given the rest of the events that day, if it is taken from the CT perspective, it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit in with anything the so-called conspirators were attempting to do. It added nothing of value to the event that could have been foreseen previous to the day itself.

Only when taken in conjunction with the Hijacker theory does it make sense. That because the plane was delayed, passengers using the Aerophones onboard where able to learn what was in store and thus revolted, causing the hijacker pilots to put the plane into a death dive. That makes sense.

I'll give some pooh pooh a shot.

Ok, the demo of the towers had to have both planes hit them to sell the event. So, in case one plane missed, flight 93 was held back until they were sure both planes hit their marks. Once they did, there was no more need in it hitting anything. The WTC and Pentagon were enough to accomplish their goals.

Do I get a dookie award or something?

 

[NYCEMT86]

I'll give some pooh pooh a shot.

Ok, the demo of the towers had to have both planes hit them to sell the event.

Your wrong! Mr T. blew up the towers because someone stole his cheetos! While the rest of the A-Team was searching for the suspect in the pentagon! Then Murdock gave some milk to Mr T. because he hates flying and they needed to get him to the pentagon where they found the suspect., but he woke up midflight, freaked out and crashed it! He already killed TuPac over something like this before, check it out! Its not all truth because there are only 2 editions of the video but here you go! weakgame[dot]com/?show=1457

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'll give some pooh pooh a shot.

Ok, the demo of the towers had to have both planes hit them to sell the event. So, in case one plane missed, flight 93 was held back until they were sure both planes hit their marks. Once they did, there was no more need in it hitting anything. The WTC and Pentagon were enough to accomplish their goals.

Do I get a dookie award or something?

Maybe a scooby snack. Doesn't explain all the known facts. Remember that 93 was supposed to take off at 8:00am. Had it been on time, then it would have been crashing at approximately the same time as the other three (77 was late too) so they wouldn't have known if they needed a backup or not. Besides, why not just pick a target and hit it anyway, why crash it and then have to make up a cover story. Also remember that the first phone call off of 93 was at 9:32am, five minutes before Flight 77 hit the pentagon at 09:37:44 am, how could they have known five minutes before they hit Pentagon that they wouldn't need Flight 93 and so start setting up the "Hero Story"? Again this requires the conspirators to be able to see into the future.

 

[The Demon's Head]

I'll give some pooh pooh a shot.

Ok, the demo of the towers had to have both planes hit them to sell the event. So, in case one plane missed, flight 93 was held back until they were sure both planes hit their marks. Once they did, there was no more need in it hitting anything. The WTC and Pentagon were enough to accomplish their goals.

Do I get a dookie award or something?

I think that scenario has been posited by other theorists already. Not saying your a conspiracy theorist

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Maybe a scooby snack. Doesn't explain all the known facts. Remember that 93 was supposed to take off at 8:00am. Had it been on time, then it would have been crashing at approximately the same time as the other three (77 was late too) so they wouldn't have known if they needed a backup or not. Besides, why not just pick a target and hit it anyway, why crash it and then have to make up a cover story. Also remember that the first phone call off of 93 was at 9:32am, five minutes before Flight 77 hit the pentagon at 09:37:44 am, how could they have known five minutes before they hit Pentagon that they wouldn't need Flight 93 and so start setting up the "Hero Story"? Again this requires the conspirators to be able to see into the future.

Come on man, it's the NWO. They think of everything.

 

[DGM]

But now you are questioning the Conspiracy Theorists logic, we all know they don't have any. To think like a CT you must excuse all scientific and rational explanations.

Welcome:

To think like a CT, I first must smash my head on my desk.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Come on man, it's the NWO. They think of everything.

Except how to silence the dozens of CTs posting furiously to forums, and how to plant WMD in Iraq.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Welcome:

To think like a CT, I first must smash my head on my desk.

I am a master BSer...I can come up with junk like that in seconds.
I've seen complicated lies proven to be proven true.
I've seen simple truth's proven to be elaborate lies.
I've seen a lot of things, and I am not quick to give trust to anyone. And yes, I do not trust major media most of the time. But I have reasons to be that way.

The Chevrolete 'exploding gas tank' scam is a good example of why. NBC set that up. They knew that the demonstration was a demolition set up, yet they reported it as fact.
The only reason people found the truth was because a fighter fighter there blew the whistle on the scam.
NBC had to apologize for misleading the public on purpose and creating lies for ratings. They apologized, and said from then on, it was their 'new policy' to not do that again.

Most of the time, if there is strong evidence against a group/ agency/ whatever, I find it difficult to trust in anything they present.

 

[deep]

Only when taken in conjunction with the Hijacker theory does it make sense. That because the plane was delayed, passengers using the Aerophones onboard where able to learn what was in store and thus revolted, causing the hijacker pilots to put the plane into a death dive. That makes sense.

Sure, that makes sense in the context of the official government explanation of what happened; however, there's no independently verifiable evidence that a plane even crashed in Shanksville (e.g., photos of a crashed plane).

As for why they included the story of Flight 93 in the first place, I'm guessing it allowed them to add a fourth target of vital national importance that would not need to withstand the damage-equivalent of a plane crashing into it (a la The Pentagon). Additionally, it took some (but not much) of the focus away from the WTC/Pentagon crashes, ultimately lending credibility to those two (or actually three) stories.

The "hero" sub-plot on Flight 93 was most likely inserted entirely for psychological reasons. Again, it lends credibility to the overall story by adding a human element. A psychologist could undoubtedly explain this better than I just have, but here's a perfect example of the effect it had:

It added nothing of value to the event that could have been foreseen previous to the day itself.

Given the relatively small amount of Flight 93-related evidence that is publicly available, it's hard to say what crashed or what its purpose was. Speculation on things like that result in nothing but low-hanging fruit (i.e., straw men) for the debunker-types.

The only important thing to know about Flight 93 is that the government story is not reproducible; in other words, a similar plane crash, in a similar place, would not yield a similar result. This applies to previous, non-9/11 plane crashes as well.

 

[gumboot]

Before you answer "So that there would be a Hero story" note that Flight 93 was scheduled to take off from Newark International Airport at 8:00am and so it was running 42 minutes late when it did actually take off. Had it not been for the heavy traffic that delayed it taking off, the passengers would likely have never learned of the other attacks, and thus would never have fought back. For Flight 93 to have been deliberately crashed to have a "Hero Story" then those involved in the conspiracy either had to have the power to create extra air traffic that didn't stand out as abnormal to delay the flight taking off, or else see into the future, both extremely hard, if not impossible.

[CT MODE]All that extra air traffic was a rather convenient coincidence for the official "hero story" wasn't it? A little too convenient if you ask me. [/CT MODE]

-Gumboot

 

[Devil's Advocate]

More pooh pooh...

Maybe they shot the plane down and just did not to say that, because then it taints the whole 'victimization' of the entire event.
So rather than make us deal with the fact that they shot a plane down (which would have been understandable to me if they had) and take focus away from the terrorists, they created a hero story instead.

Ok, I cannot do this anymore.
I've been staring at the 'Submit Reply' for a few minutes now.
Though it is just for sake of alternate theory, it feels disrespectful to the victims on that day to do it.

 

[T.A.M.]

but you are the Devil's Advocate.

It could be worse, you could be calling Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham's Mother a liar, like so many in the truth movement do...as they do for Ted Olson and so many others who lost loved ones on the aircrafts that day.

TAM

 

[Devil's Advocate]

but you are the Devil's Advocate.

I know....but that does not mean I have to like it!

 

[WildCat]

Welcome:

To think like a CT, I first must smash my head on my desk.

Wait! You have to smoke a bong first!

 

[PhantomWolf]

there's no independently verifiable evidence that a plane even crashed in Shanksville (e.g., photos of a crashed plane).

There are numerous photos of plane parts. More in fact than there are of VJ Flight 592 after it crashed in Florida.

The only important thing to know about Flight 93 is that the government story is not reproducible; in other words, a similar plane crash, in a similar place, would not yield the same result. This applies to previous, non-9/11 plane crashes as well.

And yet other plane crashes have produced similar results be it on smaller scales. Several have buried themselves into the ground when hitting earth, and breaking into small pieces isn't impossible as evidenced by Flight 592 which did the same thing on impact.

The big trouble is that none of these crashes perfectly replicate 93's impact so while they show a similar result to 93, to the CT, because they aren't identical, they don't prove anything.

 

[DGM]

Given the relatively small amount of Flight 93-related evidence that is publicly available, it's hard to say what crashed or what its purpose was. Speculation on things like that result in nothing but low-hanging fruit (i.e., straw men) for the debunker-types.

Your right, It's only available to those who WANT to find it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ok, I cannot do this anymore.
I've been staring at the 'Submit Reply' for a few minutes now.
Though it is just for sake of alternate theory, it feels disrespectful to the victims on that day to do it.

Yet the CTs do it all the time. They even go as far as saying that the victims never existed, or that they were paid off and are living under assumed identities and that their families are lying. But hey, coming from the same people whose claims directly imply that the FDNY are all lying about what happened on 9/11 what can we expect. The 9/11 CTs claim they are doing what they do "for the victims and their families" when it is quite obvious they don't give a [rule8] about the families and the victims, but are just interested in their own slice of fame and whatever money they they scam out of the deaths of 3,000 people. It's about the only reason I bother fighting the 9/11 scrouge, because they are ghouls that prey on weak and uneducated, infecting them with the same disease so they can feed on the bones of those killed that day. It's sickening.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

There are numerous photos of plane parts. More in fact than there are of VJ Flight 592 after it crashed in Florida.

And yet other plane crashes have produced similar results be it on smaller scales. Several have buried themselves into the ground when hitting earth, and breaking into small pieces isn't impossible as evidenced by Flight 592 which did the same thing on impact.

The big trouble is that none of these crashes perfectly replicate 93's impact so while they show a similar result to 93, to the CT, because they aren't identical, they don't prove anything.

I hate to sound all CTish...but the Kenya Airways crash photo's look 100 times worse than the Flight 93 photo's , it was at a 90° angle at impact as opposed to flight 93's 40° angle. A 90° angle of impact seems like it would leave far less debris than a plane that crashed at a 40°.
However, the speed of the Kenya Airways crash was not noted.