This Flight was shot down by the US government
This film is simply propaganda.
share>>This film is simply propaganda.<<
The intention might not be, but the effect is similar to that of one.
MovieChat Forums > Flight 93 (2006) Discussion > This Flight was shot down by the US gove...
But if they depicted that in the movie it would have been "unamerican". People don't want to see that, they want a movie to wave The Stars and Stripes at.
--------------------------------
Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin on you
[deleted]
Prove it. The US Air Force wasn't authorized to shoot planes down until 30 mintures after Flight 93 crashed. The nearest F-16 was also 100 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashed, well outside missile range. If you are going to make an idiotic post at least try to present some legit facts to back it up.
shareBut what *facts* do you have, JollyRoger, to support another version of the events ?
Other than the assertions of people with camera crews or official titles, that you've chosen to believe ... can you *prove* the version of the story you cling to ?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
No scattered turbine parts.
What JollyRoger said which NORAD denied till it was forced out of them by the commission
A very small debris field with nothing heavy other than a intact engine any distance away.
The fact that if we did shoot it down, everyone would understand and it would prove we were trying to stop 9/11. A shoot down would be in the governments favor, why would they hide it? (We stopped part of 9/11 and as a warning to future terrorists, your acts will be in vain, we will stop you again)
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
No scattered turbine parts.
A very small debris field with nothing heavy other than a intact engine any distance away.
Neither of those is actual proof it wasn't shot down. They indicate it didn't explode mid-air, but nothing more than that.
What JollyRoger said which NORAD denied till it was forced out of them by the commission
Again, not actual proof. People make mistakes, lie and cover them up all the time. Others collude with them for what they believe are good reasons, or for a greater good, without being evil or deliberately secretive.
Just to be clear: I'm not trying to argue for a conspiracy. I don't believe there was one -- and certainly not one of the elaborate and bizarre complexity as is argued on these boards (on both sides, mind you). It's too easy for the people who want the official story to be the only credible one to blow any other suggestions out of all reasonable proportion -- like saying a conspiracy would "have" to involve thousands upon thousands of people, at all levels of government and the armed forces -- and then shoot that down as patently absurd, ignoring that what they are shooting down is not necessarily what was being put forward in the first place. And for them to put forward arguments that are ultimately based on specious reasoning, as if they want (or need) to make their own beliefs the only supportable ones.
So if evidence seems to be consistent with the official story, but is also not inconsistent with other models of what might have happened, then I think that needs to be acknowledged. That is, if people want to actually be sure we all know the truth of what went on, rather than folk simply trying to ensure that what they've personally chosen to believe is never challenged. Personal attacks and name-calling smacks very much to me of the latter.
The fact that if we did shoot it down, everyone would understand and it would prove we were trying to stop 9/11. A shoot down would be in the governments favor, why would they hide it? (We stopped part of 9/11 and as a warning to future terrorists, your acts will be in vain, we will stop you again)
That presupposes that the ones capable of doing the shooting-down knew at that point in time that this was a planned terrorist attack from outside the US, and were capable of generating a planned demonstrative response. I'm not sure that that's true. Or perhaps that the shooting-down would have been a covert, planned action that was then knowingly covered up.
But what if it was simply a rash, panicked, unauthorised act ? One that was then hushed up, not as part of a prior conspiracy, but because of the hurt and upset it would cause to the American people if the truth became known ? Incidents of "friendly fire" are certainly not unknown, and there's almost always an attempt to cover them up, at least initially.
Or as a third alternative, if there *was* some conspiracy, then the attacks weren't meant to fail, because they were meant to galvanize the American public into a posture of defense and allow the US Government to take whatever actions it declared appropriate (which, so the theory goes, were already predetermined before the attacks), e.g. the Patriot Act, and the invasion of Iraq.
I don't think your arguments preclude those possibilities.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
share
by MasterShake2009 1 day ago (Thu Oct 30 2008 07:20:59) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No scattered turbine parts.
What JollyRoger said which NORAD denied till it was forced out of them by the commission
A very small debris field with nothing heavy other than a intact engine any distance away.
The fact that if we did shoot it down, everyone would understand and it would prove we were trying to stop 9/11. A shoot down would be in the governments favor, why would they hide it? (We stopped part of 9/11 and as a warning to future terrorists, your acts will be in vain, we will stop you again)
by MasterShake2009 1 day ago (Thu Oct 30 2008 07:20:59) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
The way air to air missiles work is that there's a chain wrapped around an explosive warhead. Once the explosive is detonated it forces the chain outwards. This cuts into the target's fuselage, usually the after part of a jet engine nacelle.
No evidence of this was found. And, further, the blackboxes confirm the events, as do the relatives of the passengers who had cel phone conversations with the deceased.
Answer us this; what compels you to sit at your home and think of this outlandish crap? share
can you *prove* the version of the story you cling to ?
Right back atcha.
The burden of proof is on YOU to back up your "version" of the "story."
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
I haven't put forward a story, so your post is nonsensical.
You're simply being combative without justification or provocation, which doesn't say a lot for your reasoning skills.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Your tactic of saying "I don't agree with the official 'story'," while not presenting any evidence that would contradict the official "story" is nonsensical.
I am not being combative; I am merely stressing the importance of backing up your conjecture that people are "clinging" to the official "story."
The plane was NOT shot down.
If you think that it was shot down, provide compelling evidence - actual evidence - that it was.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
Your tactic of saying "I don't agree with the official 'story'," while not presenting any evidence that would contradict the official "story" is nonsensical.
But I haven't said that. I think you're just looking for a fight.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
share
mikkellster:
This Flight was shot down by the US government
This film is simply propaganda
JollyRoger:
Prove it. The US Air Force wasn't authorized to shoot planes down until 30 mintures after Flight 93 crashed. The nearest F-16 was also 100 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashed, well outside missile range. If you are going to make an idiotic post at least try to present some legit facts to back it up.
puirt-a-beul:
But what *facts* do you have, JollyRoger, to support another version of the events ?
Other than the assertions of people with camera crews or official titles, that you've chosen to believe ... can you *prove* the version of the story you cling to ?
me:
Right back atcha.
The burden of proof is on YOU to back up your "version" of the "story."
puirt-a-beul:
Your tactic of saying "I don't agree with the official 'story'," while not presenting any evidence that would contradict the official "story" is nonsensical.
But I haven't said that. I think you're just looking for a fight.
mikkellster threw out nonsense, JollyRoger called him/her on the carpet to back up his/her ridiculous claims, then you chimed in with a nonsensical statement to JollyRoger. He doesn't have to prove anything regarding a shootdown. The evidence for a shootdown just does not exist.
I'm not looking for a fight, but I do "shoot down" the morons (yes, MORONS) who spout crap about Flight 93 being "shot down."
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances. share
You're hardly in a position to call someone else a "MORON" when you've several times now accused me of saying things I haven't said and tried to take me to task for them.
So yes, looking for a fight is precisely what you're doing. Lord only knows why you would want to scrap over something that was never even said, but hey, you're the one who calls people names simply because they have a different point of view, and use your own judgementalism as if it actually bolsters your argument, so I doubt applying logic to your behaviour is going to clarify anything.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
they have a different point of view
There is no "point of view" when it comes to the fate of Flight 93, no "wiggle room" for an opinion.
The events of 9/11 are a real sore spot for me, as you can probably tell.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
The events of 9/11 are a real sore spot for me, as you can probably tell.
Yes, that's clear. I don't blame you. But perhaps you might consider they're a sore spot for a lot of people, some of whom agree with you and some of whom may not.
There is no "point of view" when it comes to the fate of Flight 93, no "wiggle room" for an opinion.
When you're talking about the interpretation of observations, then yes, there absolutely is a point of view, and more than one. I appreciate you believe what you believe, but others do too. And the first post I made which you've called nonsensical merely points to the fact that a lot of what people put forward as "proof" isn't any such thing. It may be evidence, but that's not proof; it may be consistent with a certain interpretation, but that's not proof either. And as I tried to point out, certain facts being consistent with an interpretation don't establish that that interpretation is the only valid one when there are other interpretations that they are also consistent with.
So, an honest, genuine, non-aggressive question, if I may:
what is it, if anything, that you feel is hurt or damaged or taken away from the events of that horrible day, the courage and tragedy of the people involved in it and affected by it, if questions are asked that may call aspects of the "official" story into doubt ?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
share
what is it, if anything, that you feel is hurt or damaged or taken away from the events of that horrible day, the courage and tragedy of the people involved in it and affected by it, if questions are asked that may call aspects of the "official" story into doubt ?
[First of all, I am no "government shill," as some have accused me of being.]
I am a mechanical engineer, and I deal in absolutes.
The Towers were struck by aircraft with heavy fuel loads. The resulting structural damage and fires caused them to collapse. WTC 7 collapsed due to massive collateral damage from the collapse of the North Tower.
My issue lies in that posters rant about "cruise missiles" and "demolition charges" without knowing ANYTHING about either of those things.
By shouting "Flight 93 was shot down!" they are not taking into account ANY of the issues associated with such an endeavor actually taking place.
I am concerned that people who are easily swayed by conspiracy blogs will vote based on their latent distrust of authority (the vaunted "NWO" or whatever). That's bad. Bad bad bad.
I could go on, but I'll go ahead and step out now.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
Don't believe everything you hear JollyRoger. We are all pawns in the game of life
shareAn F-16 can cover 100 miles in like 4 minutes. I have no idea if they had been given or would have been given the order to shoot, but don't pretend it didn't happen because the fighters were too far away.
shareWell,if anyone fired any missiles that day they obviously missed the planes and hit you in the head mik.
Illigitimi non Carborundum
Of course it was shot down. This film, and the "myth of Flight 93" is childish nonsense. It excuses Americans of the real task of removing the people in power that did this, because they realize they cant. The Government's gone beyond its accountability to the people, so they choose to scapegoat people (usually, a culture they dont understand)to blame and attack.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401315/Flight-93-shot-claims-b ook.html
"Only fools drink from the fountain of illusion"
As I don't believe the official story, nor do I believe it was shot down, here is my opinion.
Based on the minute amount of wreckage found at the site, along with satellite images of the area years prior to the events, there was no plane. The area in question, where the plane supposedly crashed, was already a crater based on USGS images of the area circa 1994. All they had to do was throw some airplane parts in the hole and add some smoke and fire. Not one single body part, seat or luggage was found at the crash site.
The Pentagon footage is another mystery. Why, when they had over 80 security cameras recording the perimeter of the building, is there only 1 official view released to the public? Of which, the view only has 5 frames of overexposed, sun lens flared footage. The gas station and hotel views released months or years later, do not provide sufficient evidence of a plane either.
The Towers: As no tower this big (100+ stories)has ever been brought down we honestly have no basis to compare the "collapse" with. However, why is the NIST report of the events different then the actual events? The computer models used to show how the towers fell seem to conveniently lack the core columns. Which if the building was built to code, would have remained somewhat intact regardless of the concrete floors coming down around it. This has been proven by many demolition experts. Also, why when NIST was questioned and subpoenaed regarding the methods used to calculate these findings, did they refuse claiming it would "Jeopardize Public Safety"?
If this truely was the greatest terrorist attack on US soil in the history of the country, why are they being so secretive about releasing this info?
Do you think they're cognisant of how bad they got it? Lets hope not, poor b@sterdsshare
I thought so too for the simple fact that it was a little too convenient that it went down in a barren field. However, I'm leaning towards changing my mind because the top officials have admitted that Cheney gave approval to shoot it down. Why would they admit they were going to, but deny that they did? If anything that makes them look worse. That they couldn't get their ::bleep:: together in time. Lastly, I realize this is third person anecdotal evidence but I knew someone who knew someone who was in the area at the time and saw the smoldering plane crash site and said there was no gunfire.
shareJust so you know, yes. Cheney who was and is a war criminal, gave the order to shoot it own, however the fighter pilots did not have time to arm their planes. Therefore if they had to they would have rammed it, i.e. suicide missions of their own. But they didn't because the passengers overpowered the terrorists, however the suicide pilot crashed the plane on purpose before they could get control of it. All other stories are lies.
shareYou're an idiot. Today is the 20th anniversary and you 9/11 liars who call yourselves truthers are still here. Sick.
shareWell I watched a 911 special on HBO this past week & there was a man there who said that he thought upon seeing the wreckage that he concluded that it was shot down rather than it being crashed. But then I read a article about Heather “Lucky” Penney, the woman who was one of the pilots of the fighter jets sent to intercept & shoot down Flight 93 if need be. She said that they were looking for it & couldn’t find the plane & then they came upon the wreckage meaning to say that whatever was going on had already happened so the theory that the passengers brought the plane down still holds as she herself said that she & her fellow pilot never got the chance to shoot it down as it was already downed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Unless you don’t believe her account & think she’s misleading everyone or was ordered to say that but then you can conclude as she did that the plane was indeed crashed by the passengers.