|
|
|
|
bartink
New Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 04/16/2004 : 13:37:53
|
http://www.flight93crash.com/
This is a link to a website that seems to pose some evidentiary problems for the government story of flight 93 being brought down by heroic passenger action. It seems to me that it is more likely that it was rightly brought down by our military. For those in the last thread demanding evidence, there are numerous links to various sites, news organizations, etc. Whatdayathink? 
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 19:31:24 [Permalink]
|
bartink wrote:quote:
This is a link to a website that seems to pose some evidentiary problems for the government story of flight 93 being brought down by heroic passenger action.
Actually, the site specifically says that the government (at least the FBI) has never claimed the flight was brought down by passengers, so it seems that story has legs of its own, too. The site also goes out of its way to not say that the flight was shot down.
If the plane had been shot down, it'd probably help now, during the hearings, in that "we had an extremely difficult decision to make, but we made it" kind of way. I don't understand why that sort of thing would be hushed up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
bartink
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 23:24:03 [Permalink]
|
I seem to remember (which doesn't make it so) that the heroes storming the cockpit story came out the day or so after the 11th. I think that the government would have a hard time saying, "Yeah, they were trying to save the plane, but we didn't know so we killed them." To me, that could be powerful motivation. But, who knows?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 23:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Sure, the story was publicized quickly, but was it ever sourced to any government official, or was it just the rattlings of the reporters, quick to grab onto yet another human-interest story amongst all the violence of that day?
Also, were I on such a plane, and I had a good idea that it was going to be used as a weapon, saving the plane would be the last thing on my mind. Had I gained entry to the cockpit, I hope I would have done my best just to throw my weight forward on the yoke, and to hold myself there while the boxcutters came down repeatedly.
Screw the plane, and everyone else on it. If the hijackers got their way, I'd be dead, and it'd be a real longshot for a plane which probably had no experienced pilot on it (and even if it did, there'd be no guarantee of enough time to fix any wrong moves) to come through in one piece. And so, with the assumption that I'd be dead no matter what, I would hope that I would choose to die in a way which saved lives - compared to killng hundreds or thousands - rather than wasted them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 00:02:56 [Permalink]
|
I'm busy reading some of the sites about these conspiracies. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with them and I think they're disgracefull to the victims.
And please, post a picture of the white fighter plane supposedly seen by witnesses. Or better, send me any picture of a white, unmarked fighter plane used by the American government. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 13:07:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bartink
http://www.flight93crash.com/
This is a link to a website that seems to pose some evidentiary problems for the government story of flight 93 being brought down by heroic passenger action. It seems to me that it is more likely that it was rightly brought down by our military. For those in the last thread demanding evidence, there are numerous links to various sites, news organizations, etc. Whatdayathink?
The government never said anything about the plane being brought down by a passenger foiling a crash plot. They said that it had crashed and the NTSB and FBI was investigating. They also confirmed that the plane was one of the four reported hijacked.
The news got stories about the brave folks on the plane fighting the hijackers from cell-phone conversations with passengers and their families. Also, later from the CVR (Cockpit voice recorder) itself. The discrepancy is in three minutes of time between the cockpit recorders shutting off and the seismologists pinpointing of the impact. Several theories have been forwarded which are immenently more believable than the "unmarked military jet shot it down". Reports of an unidentified "military style" jet (note: KC-130's and other bulk carriers and transport jet planes are used by the military and are available to the open market) circling the area of the crash. The military explains this as a private jet which was asked to survey the crash site.
The theories of why such a gap might exist range anywhere from being deliberately turned off by the hijackers, accidentally turned off or the circuit breaker pulled during the struggle for control of the plane, an electrical fire of some sort started by the attempt at regaining control which terminated power to the recorders, and human error while retrieving or unforseen damage to the CVR during the recovery process.
I think people have far too much time on their hands to invent yet another reason to disparage the Bush administration when there are so many more valid and provable ones. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 04/17/2004 13:09:31 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 19:25:34 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Its more important to find the truth than it is to disgrace someone.
Not a few of these web sites appear intent on rejecting a possible truth for no other reason than it comes from "the government." Is it okay to embark on such a thoroughly biased - and thus half-blind - search for the "truth" while saying things that the victims' families may be offended by? Shouldn't one be pretty damn sure of the "truth," and have the evidence to support it, first? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 10:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Military Aircraft and their colors:
KC-130: Usually white with a black nosecone. Aircraft designated KC are cargo carriers converted for in air refueling of fighter aircraft. These are non-combat related aircraft, generally functioning well within friendly controlled areas.
F-xx: Are generally Fighters, these aircraft are painted non-reflective, radar absorbtive gray. Any markings on these aircraft will be a slightly darker gray.
A-xx: Are generally Attack Aircraft, capable of carrying a large bomb payload for area surface targets.
H-xx: Are helos. All painted non-reflective, radar absorbtive gray.
RX-xx: Are generally fighters converted for use in recon.
C-xx: are supply carriers, generally painted non-reflective, radar absorbtive gray, as they may be required to enter combat zones, though hopefully the fighter and attack aircraft have done their jobs well and taken out any remote radar controlled attack facilities.
XE-xx: are ECM aircraft. Really good to hold in reserve or just out of attack range. These are also painted non-reflective, radar absorbtive gray.
F-4's are notoriously inaccurate in firing all but the GPS controlled ordinance, though really good at avoiding detection by remote radar sites, they move to fast to be followed by anything but a modern radar sites. Though the judicious use of a couple of AE-6B's are enough to fog the radar, temporarily.
FA-18's (Fighter Attack) are similar to the F-4 in performance in these types of runs.
A-6's disappear in the ground clutter well, drop their payload on target and are consistantly shot down leaving the area, especially when leaving the area by going over a ridge line. They're too slow.
C-130s are not equipped for this type of use and therefore, not involved in these types of flights.
These aircraft are strictly Navy/Marine, as these are the videos of combat games I was able to watch, so I am most familiar with the functionality of these models. The videos I saw were shot during bombing runs in the Phillipines.
If someone is in the AF, they can probably give you more info regarding AF aircraft. Though to my knowledge they are also painted with similar type paint, though darker in color than Navy/Marine Corps aircraft. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Pyrrho
New Member
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 21:02:50 [Permalink]
|
| The latest news stories on this indicate that the passengers were apparently unable to enter the cockpit of Flight 93, and that the hijackers tried various maneuvers to keep the passengers from gaining entry. Eventually the hijackers flew the plane into the ground themselves. This does not diminish the heroism of the passengers who attempted to regain control of the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Pyrrho
New Member
USA
9 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
