9/11 vids

[Brett_Henderson]

And what's silly.. is that the feds make/made no bones about the fact that had flight 93 not crashed.. they were ready and willing to shoot it down..

[Hagar]

If a fighter did indeed need to shoot flight 93 down.. right HERE in the heartland of the USA, not only would it be nearly impossible keep that under wraps.. there's really no reason TO keep it hidden. Had they attempted to shoot it down and botched that task and the plane went on to crash into the White House.. Maybe I could see a cover-up attempt.. But it wouldn't last long.

I think this is the most logical explanation. It could certainly be covered up if thought necessary. Government departments are covering up much less important things all the time. This is what leaves them open to these conspiracy theories.

I'm quite sure that if the same thing happened today that airliner would have been shot down & quite rightly too. No doubt in my mind at all about that.

[Omag 2.0]

All I say is this... Clinton couldn't hide his extracurricular activities in the Oval Room ... how on earth's name would they hide something this big?  ;D

[Hagar]

[quote] how on earth's name would they hide something this big?

[BAW0343]

sorry, i must say something,  its been LESS then 10 hours and theres already 3 pages of posts!  I can't imagine how many there will be after school!

[Brett_Henderson]

In fact this latest feature film on Flight 93 might help convince the public that it wasn't shot down. Joe Public tends to believe what he sees on the big screen whether there's any truth in it or not.

That assumes the puplic needs to be convinced. The time/energy needed to cover something like that up is pointless. Joe Public would EXPECT the feds to shoot the plane down, if they had to. I (as a member of Joe Public) would more upset had they NOT shot it down. All the passengers were going to die anyway. This is conspiracy lacking motive.. the silliest of conspiracies.

[Craig.]

As for flight 93, if and thats a big if, If it was shot down, I have a feeling the reason that the story is released as it has been is simply the governments way of putting a heroic end to it. Lets face it, morale in the US was at its lowest then, giving the families and public something like the passengers trying to take back the flight, to hold onto and take comfort is much better than, one of our own shot it down. The plane goes down fighting, the public wont ask as many questions. If you shoot the thing down you have then got the follow up well more could have been done. Or you could have waited longer arguments. But thats all just a what if.

[Brett_Henderson]

A conspiracy to a conspiracy to a cover-up/glossing over of what really happened.. during acts of war.. complete with cell phone calls and countless airline employees and passenger family members .. all falling into place and not losing anything in the translation,, for the sake of government provided morale boosting ?!?!?!?!?

I need a drink.. and I don't drink

[Fly2e]

Ahh, a mature conversation about a possible "hot" topic...

Just waiting for the "idiot" to post something  ;)

[Mobius]

Has anyone seen the movie "United Flight 93" (or whatever it was called)?  Yes, I know it was a movie, but it portrayed a very accurate picture of what went on that day.  I highly doubt the military shot flight 93 down, as on that day, I don't know if anyone remembers, but there were around 15 airliners that the FAA had "tagged" as hijacked, but never really knew if any of them were.  The order to shoot a "hijacked" airliner down had to come from the president or vice president if the president could not be contacted.  Not to mention the only fighters within a hundred miles or so of Flight 93 were totally unarmed.  Also, flight 93 was in an inverted dive when it impacted the ground at almost 600 miles an hour, that would put tremedous stress on an aircraft and no doubt parts began to come off.  As for the 8 mile stretch of debris, for an example of how far debris can travel, think of this, I have seen the hood of a race car fly off at 180 miles per hour, and it rose probably 150 ft in the air, and was airborne for almost a minute and a half to two minutes.  If smaller pieces of debris were shedding off the airplane as it dove, it is totally plausible that it could have landed 8 miles away.  But I'm getting totally confused and hungry, so.....Lee Harvey Oswald shot the UFO at Area 51 from the moon, which triggered a laser to shoot the pentagon from a seceret military base inside the sun, obviously.

[Cobra]

Just waiting for the "idiot" to post something  ;)

Oooooh ohhh ohh i think thats my queue, i'll just shut up though...im for to right wing to discuss anything even slightly political here

[Scorpiоn]

I basically echo thoughts already said here.  I fully believe the official story insofar as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is concerned, but I have my doubts about flight 93.  Personally I believe the hijackers crashed the plane rather than surrender control to the passengers attempting to regain control.  Although to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed shot down.  Yet, as Brett has mentioned, it would be very difficult to keep that covered up methinks.

[beaky]

Indeed, it happened, people died.....all those with conspiracy in their minds should get over it

Rotty/Brett, spot on observations

I see your point, but it's vital that people not just swallow what the (increasingly monopolized and go vernment-connected) mass media doles out. If there was a conspiracy involved , it can only be exposed by keeping the discussion open.
But some of these rebellious conspiracy-lovers are just as trusting as the average Joe- they just choose their 'truth" based on a sometimes pathological distrust of authority. Their blinders are of a different color, but blinders just the same.

[Katahu]

It was the Klingons I tell ya! The Klingons did it! They have cloaking technology.

:-/

Don't you just love conspiricies. :-/

[beefhole]

When you look at the original photos of the crash at the Pentagon there are no signs of any plane! Doesn't anyone think that is a little odd? And why did it take so long to reveal this footage? I still reckon it was a car bomb, albeit a ruddy big one!

Yes there are.

This has been proven, and shown, time and time again.

The nuts just don't like mentioning it.  There are specific, undoctored photos of landing gear, shards of metal with AA paint, etc.  There are very clear engineering explanations showing a plane hit.  A car bomb wouldnt've made a dent on the outer wall of the Pentagon, let alone a hole, like, say, a plane would.

This really gets old.  The only way people ever fully buy into the consiracy theories is if they haven't been bothered to fully research the matter.

There was a stronger case against the US having ever landed on the moon, and every single point of those nuts has been refuted.  So why is it so hard for so many people to believe this?