Thread: 93 shot down as witnesses attest to

Another misleading thread title by RWF. 93 shot down as witnesses attest to

Nowhere in your linked article does it say that witnesses attest to 93 being shot down.

From your link.

It was there, just outside the tiny town of Shanksville, that a United Airlines jetliner crashed, killing all 45 people aboard in what appeared to be the fourth and final stroke of a choreographed wave of terrorism that was equated to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

The participants discussed a possible shoot down of the aircraft, said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

"The question I heard asked was: 'Who has the authority to order a commercial jetliner shot down by the military?' " Pence said. However, the congressional leaders soon learned that the plane had already crashed.

"It was an aircraft doing some unusual maneuvers at a low level, which is unusual for an aircraft that size," Fritz said last night. "It happened so quickly."

Some witnesses reported that the plane was flying upside down for a time before the crash; others said they heard up to three loud booms before the jetliner went down.

The impact "sounded like dynamite," said Lucy Menear, 83, who lives less than a half-mile from the crash site.

Eric Peterson, 28, was working in his shop in the Somerset County village of Lambertsville yesterday morning when he heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low.
The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.

Please show me a quote in the article where a witness claims the plane was shot down.

Just another example of truther quote mining attempting to fool people who won't read for themselves.

And by the way "fell from the sky" does not mean shot down.

In the face of what is considered to be the biggest intelligence/military failure in the history of our country, why would the powers that be lie about something that would have been a rare example, on that day, of the system working?

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

In the face of what is considered to be the biggest intelligence/military failure in the history of our country, why would the powers that be lie about something that would have been a rare example, on that day, of the system working?

Rummy actually did try to take credit for having shot it down. The subsequent actions of the merry morons suggest that they wanted the American public to think that they needed a hard-line, aggressive government to protect them from an enemy that could be anywhere, at any time.

The last thing they needed was a group of ordinary citizens rallying spontaneously to their own defense against insurmountable odds.

If they had shot it down, they would have trumpeted the fact all over the world.

Here is another crash that didn't happen. I can't see large plane parts, so this is all a coverup by..... um...... someone. Obviously the plane was shot down or planted there or any one of a number of silly theories, but one thing we know for SURE is that no plane crashed there!

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

I found the crumpled up script in a trash bin behind a 7/11. That's only 2 digits away from 9/11. Odd, don't you think?

Well, 7+1+1 = 9. I mean, c'mon, the only logical conclusion is that it's some kind of code. Definitely incriminating.

As for the script . . .



That was GREAT!!

And would probably be accepted as gospel over at the Lets Roll forums.

Well, I have reason to suspect that the makers of the television hit 24 were in on the conspiracy, and if so, maybe there are other scripts out there...

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

The link below references Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, leaving a trail of parts and debris 5 MILES LONG. How is this so? You shoot down a plane (like 93 was), and I could see how debris would be strewn 5 miles. But the "official" BS story claims it was all in the deep soft hole (except for the engine that apparently bounced over the trees a couple of football fields away).

Question: How would debris be spread over 5 miles, unless it was shot down?


http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...rashnat2p2.asp


A piece from above link:

United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200 en route from New Jersey to San Francisco, fell from the sky near Shanksville at 10:06 a.m., about two hours after it took off, leaving a trail of debris five miles long.

Nothing soft about that field. It was compacted backfill, as required by law.

Originally Posted by 10aces

Nothing soft about that field. It was compacted backfill, as required by law.

Baloney.....you have zero knowledge what that field consisted of

first responders know better

Originally Posted by 10aces

Nothing soft about that field. It was compacted backfill, as required by law.

You better take a look at the photos of the excavation of the buried engine. You can see that the soil is sliding back down into the trench.

It is more important to remember here that a heavy object, going fast enoguh, at the proper angle, will even bounce on water. The engines were not oriented the same way to the ground when the plane hit, thus would not have made contact with the ground at the same angle, thus would not have traveled inthe same direction once the pylons broke.

Originally Posted by 10aces

Nothing soft about that field. It was compacted backfill, as required by law.

Yes, the supposed cable expert, landfill expert, bomb expert has spoken! Of course, when confronted with the facts he turns tail and runs..... Care to explain how backfill is somehow harder than natural compaction over hundreds, thousands and even millions of years? Oh right. You tried to post a law that had nothing to do with how "hard" they have to compact the ground as proof it was harder, yet couldn't explain why building codes specify a preference for natural compaction vs. backfill. It doesn't take a genius to see that pretending the land was actually HARDER than the surrounding land and in direct contradiction to the people who LIVED there is both moronic and dishonest.