FLT 93 - the movie, one more load of horseshit

[swede]

Yeah, why did Payne Stewarts jet get intercepted within minutes in 1999 after going off course (there was no hijack transponder code on that one either - just one solitary stray airplane), while 4 - COUNT EM 4 - stray Boeings just lolled around the busiest airspace in the world for collective hours on 9-11 without so much as a single fighter intercept???? Go figure eh, just a bad day at Norad I spose (yeah and I'm Razinger)... Good thing LaLawood has it all figured out for us in this, their latest offering of Bullshit, called flight 93.

Why NORAD Interceptors
Couldn't Catch Those
911 Boeings
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
5-15-6





One of the most sacred beliefs about the four jumbo jets hijacked on September 11th, 2001, was that terrified passengers tried to communicate with those safe on the earth. The recent movie, "Flight 93," elevates this belief to a sacrament.

In order to verify that cell phones would have functioned, a test would have had to be performed in 2001, from a Boeing 757-767, moving erratically through the sky, often at low elevation. To my recollection, none were ever performed by any researcher, and certainly no reporter in the mainstream media.

Because NORAD fighter pilots never VISUALLY verified what happened aboard those four Boeings on 9-11, we will never know what occurred in the most crucial part of the plane, the cockpit. Instead we have been given play-by-play cell phone accounts of what occurred. Some of the accounts remain perplexing to say the least.

NORAD: Malice Aforethought?

There are three reasons why NORAD fighters did not intercept and visually inspect any of the hijacked Boeings. Being confused and unable to locate the hijacked planes appears suspicious, to say the least. Because imagine what those NORAD pilots might have seen. (1) Arab hijackers-or pilots posing as Arabs. (2) Professional pilots frantically waving and holding signs indicating the plane was remote controlled. (3) No pilots at all.

How, you ask, could no pilots be at the controls? Recall the flight of Pro golfer Payne Stewart. The private jet flew, maintaining a steady airspeed and course---but everyone aboard was dead. What the NORAD interceptors saw was frosted windows and no sign of life.

Now ask yourself: With four slow-moving jets to choose from, why couldn't NORAD intercept and make visual contact with even ONE? Perhaps, if that visual inspection had occurred, the USAF pilot might have reported something highly suspicious. And I don't mean sullen suicide pilots who forgot to pack their Korans.

They might have witnessed no visible sign of life. Or they would have radioed that the pilots were gesturing to them, signaling the plane was somehow flying itself. Without the poignant cell phone conversations, the entire "terrorist hijacking" would have been as fictitious as a Harry Potter fantasy novel.

No hijackers, no war on terror. No war on terror, no billions for defense and security upgrades. No cell phone calls about Arab terrorists, no religious war to, ostensibly smash Islamic countries and steal their oil.

Now suppose those NORAD pilots had made visual contact and saw-gasp---professional pilots frantically trying to regain control of their Boeing aircraft. The fighter pilots might have relayed the ominous message: "Cockpit pilots signaling they have NO control. Pilots holding sign: cannot regain manual control of stick!"

Recall that not ONE Boeing pilot pressed a four digit signal indicating their planes were being hijacked. You would think at least one pilot would have gotten off a quick message.

Equally suspicious, NORAD fighter pilots were either rerouted AWAY from the Boeings, or commanded to fly at such slow speeds they could not intercept a commercial plane, even if given a week to do so. Why? Because fighter pilots could NOT be allowed to see into the cockpit.

Whatever was visible inside the four cockpits was too terrible to see. Not frantic fighting, but perhaps the opposite: an absence of any life.

Was NORAD a criminal conspirator on 9-11? Emphatically. Consider the long list of criminal derelictions that would convict them. These accusations are from 9-11 Research

Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.

Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Indeed, once airborne, NORAD F-15s were flying slower than 450 MPH---slower than World War II fighter planes! The top speed of an F-15 in pursuit is 1875 MPH.

Perhaps the only NORAD interceptor to actually intercept an alleged hijacked airliner, occurred with Flight 93, over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the US government denied the Boeing was shot down although evidence indicates otherwise.

NORAD: many unanswered questions remain about September 11th, 2001. As a former Air Force serviceman, I am ashamed and angered by the evident fraud and intentional failure that indicate---almost without a doubt---a military coup occured.

Footnote: One of the many incongruous scenes in the movie, United 93, occured when the terrorist pilot props a postcard of the Capitol Building on the steering yoke. As if one could just hijack a jumbo jet, head east to the ocean and fly around until seeing the dome.

[Guido]

Interesting article. Interesting that it doesn't cite any evidence yet makes a lot of way out claims... where's the beef, swede?

[Driving Rain]

The guy commanding NORAD that day was a ......CANADIAN. The US general who was usually at the helm of NORAD was called away on other business so on 9-11 he left his 2IC a Canadian in charge.
SO....those evil Canuck mo-fukers were behind this.

[goates]

I don't know about the Payne Stewart flight. Sounds like it actually took a little while to be intercepted. Not to mention that no hijacked airliner had ever been used as a cruise missile before, so scrambling fighters to intercept them probably wasn't the first thing to cross ATC's mind.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=3&c=y

[swede]

I don't know about the Payne Stewart flight. Sounds like it actually took a little while to be intercepted.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=3&c=y

Yeah right, it took a whole 21 minutes from the time of radio comm failure to Payne Stewarts Jet being intercepted by an F-16. Thats a long while, lets not forget, he was up at FL400 or so when intercepted. Anything out of popular mechanics is pure pap, they are shills and nothing they have written to do with 911 is even vaguely objective or factual. Like for instance their non-explanation of the WTC7 spontaneous collapse. First time in history for such an event and they have nothing?? Then we have the lack of bodies at the location of the shankesville crash and the pentagon crash, and not one piece of realistically viewable video evidence for the aircraft that hit the pentagon. Not one, the most surveilled group of buildings on the globe and zilch. There sure were a lot of peculiar coincidences on 911, in fact so many as to be statistically impossible. This movie is fiction, being sold as fact and people should realize that it's just one more bill of goods required to sell the "official "(but fictional) version of 911.

[CAL]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... n-911.html

Go to cnn and you can watch the video......I am not sure but dont you think you would notice the 757 even a glimpse of it?.......

Remember that crazy video that was going around about a massive conspiracy that it was actually a cruise missle that flew into the pentagon...check out the video.....

[goates]

I don't know about the Payne Stewart flight. Sounds like it actually took a little while to be intercepted.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=3&c=y

Yeah right, it took a whole 21 minutes from the time of radio comm failure to Payne Stewarts Jet being intercepted by an F-16. Thats a long while, lets not forget, he was up at FL400 or so when intercepted. Anything out of popular mechanics is pure pap, they are shills and nothing they have written to do with 911 is even vaguely objective or factual. Like for instance their non-explanation of the WTC7 spontaneous collapse. First time in history for such an event and they have nothing?? Then we have the lack of bodies at the location of the shankesville crash and the pentagon crash, and not one piece of realistically viewable video evidence for the aircraft that hit the pentagon. Not one, the most surveilled group of buildings on the globe and zilch. There sure were a lot of peculiar coincidences on 911, in fact so many as to be statistically impossible. This movie is fiction, being sold as fact and people should realize that it's just one more bill of goods required to sell the "official "(but fictional) version of 911.

Maybe you will believe the NTSB accident brief. It was more than an hour from the time radio contact was lost before the plane was intercetped. Don;t forget to take the time zone change into account in their timeline, I suspect people are "conveniently" leaving that part out to make their conspiracy theory sound like it has some evidence.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

As for the WTC7 collapse, maybe you should go read the replies myself and others posted in the previous threads. There was more damage to the building than a quick glance would show, or that you would see in grainy videos taken from a distance.

Missing bodies in an airplane crash? Umm, maybe they were incinerated or otherwise destroyed in the crash. The 737 that crashed in Colorado (I think) and the ValueJet crash certainly didn't leave a lot of evidence.

Security cameras are not the same as a TV camera that is running constantly, and it wouldn't be hard to miss a plane moving at a few hundred MPH when they are only taking a few frames a second, if that.

But hey, have fun looking over your shoulder at everything in this world with distrust.

[wha happen]

i dont distrust everything... just the U.S. government

[Clodhopper]

Friggin conspiracy nuts. Next thing you're going to say the Moon Landing was faked as well?

I love the one about the 767 carrying a missile pod right on the wingspar box. Because you know, the gear doors could close if there was a huge chunk of aluminum in the way...

Oh wait, maybe they used a modified C-141 or C-5 to airlift the missile pod up, then used a modified F-117 carrying a crack commando squad to transfer and attach the missile pod in mid-air. That must be it!!!!

Thats much more believable than a group of terrorists hijacking an airplane (done before, I might add, unlike the F-117 thing(except in Executive Decision) ), then pointing the airplane at a huge building in downtown New York.

[goates]

i dont distrust everything... just the U.S. government

I'm not saying I trust the US government, just that I don't believe they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Regarding how Bush and Co. have taken advantage of the situation for thier own benefit and to invade Iraq (the terrorists certainly didn't come from there...), that part I'm quite sure is true.

[swede]

Friggin conspiracy nuts. Next thing you're going to say the Moon Landing was faked as well?

I love the one about the 767 carrying a missile pod right on the wingspar box. Because you know, the gear doors could close if there was a huge chunk of aluminum in the way...

Oh wait, maybe they used a modified C-141 or C-5 to airlift the missile pod up, then used a modified F-117 carrying a crack commando squad to transfer and attach the missile pod in mid-air. That must be it!!!!

Thats much more believable than a group of terrorists hijacking an airplane (done before, I might add, unlike the F-117 thing(except in Executive Decision) ), then pointing the airplane at a huge building in downtown New York.

Yeah, don't ya just love these conspiracy nuts! Can you feature it, they truly actually believe that 19 rug riders (many of whom are still alive - or at least were prior to Bush bombing the crap out of their countrymen) simultaneously overtook with frikkin box cutters 4 airliners without ever having even flown a sim in their lives, and flew these aircraft into extremely precise targets without a hitch. That is except for the last which was shot down. All this went on, while coincidence of coincidences the whole of NORAD was doing excercises practising a similar scenario so they stood down and stayed down after one after another aircraft hit their targets. Boy, some people will buy just about any load of crap that comes down the pike

[swede]

Missing bodies in an airplane crash? Umm, maybe they were incinerated or otherwise destroyed in the crash. The 737 that crashed in Colorado (I think) and the ValueJet crash certainly didn't leave a lot of evidence.

But hey, have fun looking over your shoulder at everything in this world with distrust.[/quote]


Have you ever seen pictures of an airliner crash site??? There are mountains of debris even following those which have burned, including seats, luggage, body parts - you name it. Neither the Shankesville site or pentagon had one iota of this sort of debris. Debris should have been everywhere at the pentagon site because the aircraft would have folded up like a tin can when it hit that massive, immovable structure. Instead we had damage through 3 bombproof rings of the pentagon and not one shred of typical airline detritus left. The crashsite of 93 was 100% consistent with what would happen to an aircraft after being shot down. Aircraft parts were spread for miles, an engine was found 2 miles from the crash site, except for the ominous hole in the ground which was devoid of anything that would indicate an airliner had crashed there. As to wtc 7, that building had minor fire damage and next thing you knew, down she came in a controlled demo. Never before in history has any sort of fire, totally demolished a steel and concrete structure remotely similar to wtc 7.

[Siddley Hawker]

Ok, I'll bite. When were the explosives for the controlled demolition placed in the building? Had to have been when it was erected, no?

[swede]

Good question, I don't know when they would have been placed and it would have been extremely difficult to do it after the construction without ripping into the structure in a lot of areas. That is at least as far as using conventional demo methods go. The concrete seemed to virtually pulverize during the fall, so I suppose if extreme high explosives were used, the placement may not have been as critical and would have taken less time and care to place than standard dynamite. This would allow for placement during times when the building was shut down. Which apparently was quite frequent during the time leading up to 911. It was after all, not a public building and access to it would have been strictly controlled. There are video conversations of Mr. Larry Silverstein saying the decision had been made to "pull the building", this is demo parlance for bringing it down.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

[grimey]

WTC7 had alot more than minor fire damage, swede. And as for collapsing into its own footprint, name a building close to its size that hasn't collapsed into its own footprint. You can't, because it won't happen. The building has too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down when you pull out the supports.

[goates]

Good question, I don't know when they would have been placed and it would have been extremely difficult to do it after the construction without ripping into the structure in a lot of areas. That is at least as far as using conventional demo methods go. The concrete seemed to virtually pulverize during the fall, so I suppose if extreme high explosives were used, the placement may not have been as critical and would have taken less time and care to place than standard dynamite. This would allow for placement during times when the building was shut down. Which apparently was quite frequent during the time leading up to 911. It was after all, not a public building and access to it would have been strictly controlled. There are video conversations of Mr. Larry Silverstein saying the decision had been made to "pull the building", this is demo parlance for bringing it down.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

Talk about taking a phrase and reading far more into it that was actually there. He was talking about pulling the firefighters out to avoid any more loss of life. I love how conpsiracy theorists take small facts completely out of context.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

[goates]

Missing bodies in an airplane crash? Umm, maybe they were incinerated or otherwise destroyed in the crash. The 737 that crashed in Colorado (I think) and the ValueJet crash certainly didn't leave a lot of evidence.

But hey, have fun looking over your shoulder at everything in this world with distrust.

Have you ever seen pictures of an airliner crash site??? There are mountains of debris even following those which have burned, including seats, luggage, body parts - you name it. Neither the Shankesville site or pentagon had one iota of this sort of debris. Debris should have been everywhere at the pentagon site because the aircraft would have folded up like a tin can when it hit that massive, immovable structure. Instead we had damage through 3 bombproof rings of the pentagon and not one shred of typical airline detritus left.

Really, not one shred of detritus left? Looks like there was lots of stuff lying around to me.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html[/quote]

[swede]

Missing bodies in an airplane crash? Umm, maybe they were incinerated or otherwise destroyed in the crash. The 737 that crashed in Colorado (I think) and the ValueJet crash certainly didn't leave a lot of evidence.

But hey, have fun looking over your shoulder at everything in this world with distrust.

Have you ever seen pictures of an airliner crash site??? There are mountains of debris even following those which have burned, including seats, luggage, body parts - you name it. Neither the Shankesville site or pentagon had one iota of this sort of debris. Debris should have been everywhere at the pentagon site because the aircraft would have folded up like a tin can when it hit that massive, immovable structure. Instead we had damage through 3 bombproof rings of the pentagon and not one shred of typical airline detritus left.

Really, not one shred of detritus left? Looks like there was lots of stuff lying around to me.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

[/quote]


Yeah oh yeah that is real compelling evidence you conspiracy theorists are throwing out there. Whats your conspiracy on how there was zero damage to the Penta lawn as they call it, and how their was absolutely no evidence of major engine components ( which should have done damage way outboard of the initial hole where the huge iron clad nose section penentrated 3 rings of bombproof reinforced concrete) or tail empannage, wing components or seats. The tail empannage just about always survives a crash to a recognizable degree, but there is nothing here to indicate that a 757 was the aircraft which hit. You conspiracy types just kill me, ya dont give up do ya?

[swede]

WTC7 had alot more than minor fire damage, swede. And as for collapsing into its own footprint, name a building close to its size that hasn't collapsed into its own footprint. You can't, because it won't happen. The building has too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down when you pull out the supports.

42 storey buildings do not spontaneously collapse in their own footprint while on fire, never happened ever, except on 911, what a day for amazing coincidences eh??

[goates]

WTC7 had alot more than minor fire damage, swede. And as for collapsing into its own footprint, name a building close to its size that hasn't collapsed into its own footprint. You can't, because it won't happen. The building has too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down when you pull out the supports.

42 storey buildings do not spontaneously collapse in their own footprint while on fire, never happened ever, except on 911, what a day for amazing coincidences eh??

You have obviously not read the links that have been posted about that building have you? The side facing the main towers had severe damage to the bottom 10-20 stories that gouged out a hole going up to a quarter of the way through the building. This would have taken out or severely damaged some of the main internal supports, with fire weakening what was left. As there was nothing to give the building any sideways momentum, the only direction it was going to go was down.

So far all you have done is repeat the same claims over and over, ignore any counter eveidence (there are pictures of engines in the link I posted). You seem to have quit trying to claim that they intercepted Payne Stewart's plane in 20 minutes. Why?

[grimey]

WTC7 had alot more than minor fire damage, swede. And as for collapsing into its own footprint, name a building close to its size that hasn't collapsed into its own footprint. You can't, because it won't happen. The building has too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down when you pull out the supports.

42 storey buildings do not spontaneously collapse in their own footprint while on fire, never happened ever, except on 911, what a day for amazing coincidences eh??

Again, can you name a 42 story building that collapsed, but not into its own footprint? Thought not.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, swede.

[CAL]

Ok guys lets just take a step back......

Look at the video, does anyone see a 757 approaching the building? Again I am not a video expert but does anyone see one? a nose, a tail, a wing, anything even for a split second. It was said that the video was released to dismiss conspiracy theories but all this does is make it worse in my opinion. Now they will have to get a video expert in to say that this 'type' of camera is not likely to pick up a 757 approaching at high speed...whatever that speed would be....and if it did, at that low level without hitting anything on the way then wow those arabs can fly.....now if it wasnt an airplane then we are missing one......or maybe not...I dont think anyone really knows what happened on that day.

[niss]

I know I just dont really feel like telling.

[CAL]

[Doc]

LBJ had JFK killed. Of this, I am sure!