Those people make it a hell of a lot more difficult to even listen to anyone who has a question which in fact might be a good one. But the huge amount of obviously bullshit remarks have the same effect.

Actually I was a little impressed seeing how Giuliani handled the situation in a documentary, but that view was only based on that documentary, I need to add, as my knowledge about him ends with knowing he was mayor of N.Y.

___________________

Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Hey, you’ll believe whatever you will. What I said was there is no evidence to suggest the fight was shot down. And there isn’t. if, as you say, the orders were given to shoot down any more hijacked craft, and they did shoot down 93, then that’s what we would’ve been told (eventually). There was no need to make up a story about 93. Everyone would understand the necessity of shooting it down. I’ll see your single eye witness and raise you several dozen: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1 The claim that passengers attempted to re-take the plane is also well supported: No blast or evidence of being shot at is recorded or mentioned by anyone.

Well firstly, it's not "if" the presidential authorization was given - it's a fact:

"Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.218 His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, "in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing." The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President".

Source: 9/11 commission http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Bush actually said in an interview just the other day that he believed that at the time he was responsible for shooting down flight 93.

Why would we have been told if they shot it down?

Just think about it - the administration have a choice; tell the world they just opened fire on US citizens for the greater good (the protection of the white house) or go with the heroic story of passengers rising up against the terrorists.

It's not rocket science for a government under pressure to make that choice, especially as there was an effort made by passengers to storm the cockpit.

IMO, the assumption that you make that we would eventually be told is slowly becoming a reality. AT the time I think there was simply too much pressure on the administration, and (at least they made the decision that) the public simply could not have handled being told the government killed the passengers to save their own hides.

Bear in mind, when this whole event happened the government went in to extreme damage protection mode, and I remember a immediate fierce battle between the certain media outlets and the government regarding blame and whether things were being handled properly. Remember the venom over the firefighters radios not working, the flack that INS caught, the flack that the FAA/INS/Customs got for loose security, the still unanswered questions about where bush was for all those hours directly after 9/11....they did not need any more heat on them, and admitting they shot down 93 would have been simply disastrous and too big a pill to swallow. Even 10 years later, I think it would have incredible impact.

I think at some point, the real scenario will come to light.

The rest of the truther conspiracy crap is utter bullshit. It was not an inside job - the terrorists did it, albeit only the help of systemic ignorance and ineptitude of multiple government agencies.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Well firstly, it's not "if" the presidential authorization was given - it's a fact

I saw a documentary last week, a F16 or F15 pilot was interviewed. At the time they asked him if he would have a problem with that order. He said, of course not, it's my job. Dealing with it was something he had to do later.

Regarding what Bush said, well he also once said he saw the first impact on television before he entered the school. But even the documentary shows he didn't. So what he says doesn't need to be what happened.
This is something what happens a lot, which also is a problem with witnesses or survivors when the tell what happened.

___________________

Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here

Rann, you are an idiot. If the plane was shot down there would be a debris field covering dozens of square miles. A jetliner being blown out of the sky is not all going to come down in one place like it did with Flight 93. Also the chunks of aircraft would be much larger.

Its clear from the photos that the thing went into the ground almost vertical and intact. Otherwise you'd have had pieces of fuselage and wing and engines blown all over the country side with no way to cover that up.

The moment nou posts in a conspiracy thread, game over.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Rann, you are an idiot. If the plane was shot down there would be a debris field covering dozens of square miles. A jetliner being blown out of the sky is not all going to come down in one place like it did with Flight 93. Also the chunks of aircraft would be much larger. Its clear from the photos that the thing went into the ground almost vertical and intact. Otherwise you'd have had pieces of fuselage and wing and engines blown all over the country side with no way to cover that up.

There was you fucking numbnuts. It's really fucking annoying when people try to chime in when they don't even know the official reports produced by the FAA, Norad or The Government.

Debris was spread over several miles, and in fact a lot of debris was found in indian lake, 6 fucking miles away from the crash site.

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/2...3somersetp3.asp

The furthest debris was recovered 8 miles away and Police Major Lyle Szupinka of Somerset county stated that one engine "was found a considerable distance from the crash site" and even though evidence of a secondary crash site was reported on all the major news networks, the FBI refused to confirm it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFsPG3_TwOo

Finally, if it was shot down, it would have been with an air to air missle, which targets heat signatures, namely from jet engines.

This means that an engine would have been destroyed, and is highly unlikely that it would have destroyed the entire plane, meaning the plane would have hit the ground at least partially intact.

Google Korea 747 and USSR for an exact example of a commercial jet liner being brought down by an air to air missile, nearly entirely intact apart from one engine.

The suicides from the buildings were pretty metal. Like there's not tooooo much more radical other than like Michael Schumacher.