Flight 93's Delay

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
…
7

Flight 93's Delay
Topic Started: Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM (1,713 Views)
Toriac	Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM Post #1
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	I know there are many truther theories concerning flight 93. I think the most prevelent one is that 93 was shot down or fake crashed in the field in Shanksville. They supposedly did this so they could use the heroic story of the passengers fighting back and basically sacrificing their lives for the good of the country. In order for this to happen, flight 93 would have had to be delayed at Newark on purpose. The delay gave the passengers time to learn of the attacks and mount their attack. Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story?
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


Toriac	Sep 12 2009, 12:05 PM Post #2
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	Also, flight 93 took off just 3 or 4 mins before flight 11 crashed into the north tower. Newark airport gives front row seats to this event. If 93 had been delayed just a bit longer, it may not have been allowed to takeoff at all. Would the govt have taken that chance? If they went through all of the trouble of faking every reported call from flight 93 and with such precision as to fool the family members of the passengers, and a host of other things that they would have had to know in advance and plan for, how was this delay made to happen?
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


JFK	Sep 12 2009, 12:06 PM Post #3
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Toriac Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM I know there are many truther theories concerning flight 93. I think the most prevelent one is that 93 was shot down or fake crashed in the field in Shanksville. They supposedly did this so they could use the heroic story of the passengers fighting back and basically sacrificing their lives for the good of the country. In order for this to happen, flight 93 would have had to be delayed at Newark on purpose. The delay gave the passengers time to learn of the attacks and mount their attack. Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story? Why are you asking is this when you should be filing FOIA's to get your answer ?
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


ToS	Sep 12 2009, 12:34 PM Post #4
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story? 1 - How would we know? 2 - Why do you care?
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Alfie	Sep 12 2009, 01:51 PM Post #5
Posts: 265 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	ToS Sep 12 2009, 12:34 PM Toriac Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story? 1 - How would we know? 2 - Why do you care? ToS As someone who I know from elsewhere believes Shanksville is a phony crash site, I think you should care. If the confrontation with hi-jackers and the calls from the plane were part of a set-up it was essential that UA 93's departure was delayed. Otherwise there would be no way of pretending that the passengers had learnt of the fate of other hi-jacked planes and had taken the matter into their own hands. If it could be established that there was an improbable reason for the delay in UA 93's take-off that would strengthen your case. The opposite would obviously weaken it. My information is that UA 93 pushed back from the gate at 8.01, very slightly late, but was then held up for 41 minutes by congestion, waiting her turn to go. Now, would it not have been so much easier to think up an excuse for delaying the plane at the gate rather than trying to arrange traffic congestion under the eyes of air traffic controllers ?



JFK	Sep 12 2009, 02:09 PM Post #6
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Alfie Sep 12 2009, 01:51 PM ToS Sep 12 2009, 12:34 PM Toriac Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story? 1 - How would we know? 2 - Why do you care? ToS As someone who I know from elsewhere believes Shanksville is a phony crash site, I think you should care. If the confrontation with hi-jackers and the calls from the plane were part of a set-up it was essential that UA 93's departure was delayed. Otherwise there would be no way of pretending that the passengers had learnt of the fate of other hi-jacked planes and had taken the matter into their own hands. If it could be established that there was an improbable reason for the delay in UA 93's take-off that would strengthen your case. The opposite would obviously weaken it. My information is that UA 93 pushed back from the gate at 8.01, very slightly late, but was then held up for 41 minutes by congestion, waiting her turn to go. Now, would it not have been so much easier to think up an excuse for delaying the plane at the gate rather than trying to arrange traffic congestion under the eyes of air traffic controllers ? I think you should reread TOS' reply alfie.
Posts: 4,221 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Toriac	Sep 12 2009, 02:41 PM Post #7
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	ToS Sep 12 2009, 12:34 PM Toriac Sep 12 2009, 10:20 AM Did the govt and others deliberately delay 93 40min? Was the delay a part of the plan all along? Flight 93 would have made it to Washington had it not been for the delay. Any ideas as to how they purposely delayed 93 at the airport so they could have the "lets roll" story? 1 - How would we know? 2 - Why do you care? The delay is critical to the fate of flight 93. If you have a belief that the govt faked the crash, you should care about looking at everything to see if your belief is even feasible or possible. When you have a theory it doesn't become fact unless all aspects are looked at and they support it. Why would you believe your theory, if things don't add up? What has been put forth is that flight 93 was planned well in advance. They would have to have known who would be on the flight so they could learn their lives and fake their voices, right? If the flight wasn't delayed, the Shanksville story couldn't be told. Is it possible that the delay was a blessing and saved lives, because the hijackers couldn't know or plan for it?
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


ToS	Sep 13 2009, 01:51 PM Post #8
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 12 2009, 02:41 PM The delay is critical to the fate of flight 93. If you have a belief that the govt faked the crash, you should care about looking at everything to see if your belief is even feasible or possible. When you have a theory it doesn't become fact unless all aspects are looked at and they support it. Why would you believe your theory, if things don't add up? I agree. So what don't you prove the official story first since that's the initial claim and it just does not add up: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers Edited by ToS, Sep 13 2009, 01:52 PM.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Toriac	Sep 13 2009, 02:02 PM Post #9
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	ToS Sep 13 2009, 01:51 PM Toriac Sep 12 2009, 02:41 PM The delay is critical to the fate of flight 93. If you have a belief that the govt faked the crash, you should care about looking at everything to see if your belief is even feasible or possible. When you have a theory it doesn't become fact unless all aspects are looked at and they support it. Why would you believe your theory, if things don't add up? I agree. So what don't you prove the official story first since that's the initial claim and it just does not add up: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers The official story does add up. Its the myriad of ever changing theories that the truth puts forth that don't add up.
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


ToS	Sep 13 2009, 02:10 PM Post #10
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 13 2009, 02:02 PM ToS Sep 13 2009, 01:51 PM I agree. So what don't you prove the official story first since that's the initial claim and it just does not add up: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers The official story does add up. I see you didn't pass the challenge yet.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Toriac	Sep 13 2009, 02:13 PM Post #11
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	ToS Sep 13 2009, 02:10 PM Toriac Sep 13 2009, 02:02 PM ToS Sep 13 2009, 01:51 PM I agree. So what don't you prove the official story first since that's the initial claim and it just does not add up: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers The official story does add up. I see you didn't pass the challenge yet. There is no challenge. The challenge if for you to understand what a plane crash looks like.
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


ToS	Sep 13 2009, 02:16 PM Post #12
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 13 2009, 02:13 PM There is no challenge. The challenge if for you to understand what a plane crash looks like. OK, so what does it look like when a 757 mostly buries itself? Cause I've never seen that before. Maybe you can show me.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Toriac	Sep 13 2009, 03:28 PM Post #13
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	ToS Sep 13 2009, 02:16 PM Toriac Sep 13 2009, 02:13 PM There is no challenge. The challenge if for you to understand what a plane crash looks like. OK, so what does it look like when a 757 mostly buries itself? Cause I've never seen that before. Maybe you can show me. It looks like a hole in the ground with most of the debris not visible from an overhead picture. If you chop a car up into 10,000 pieces and scatter 80% under dirt or embed it in the ground, someone could say 80% of it was buried.
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


Domenick DiMaggio	Sep 13 2009, 04:28 PM Post #14
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Toriac Sep 13 2009, 02:02 PM ToS Sep 13 2009, 01:51 PM Toriac Sep 12 2009, 02:41 PM The delay is critical to the fate of flight 93. If you have a belief that the govt faked the crash, you should care about looking at everything to see if your belief is even feasible or possible. When you have a theory it doesn't become fact unless all aspects are looked at and they support it. Why would you believe your theory, if things don't add up? I agree. So what don't you prove the official story first since that's the initial claim and it just does not add up: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers The official story does add up. Its the myriad of ever changing theories that the truth puts forth that don't add up. really? what flew over indian lake prior the explosion coming from the direction of the crash site then? perhaps i can tell mayor lichty.....
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Alfie	Sep 14 2009, 05:03 AM Post #15
Posts: 265 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. Proof of a false delay introduced that morning would be powerful evidence not only of UA 93 being set-up but of the whole day's events. With that in mind I have had a look at what happened at the airport. UA 93 pushed back from the gate at 8.01 am, very slightly late ; it was then held up for 41 minutes by traffic congestion and was waiting its turn. It finally took off at 8.42 a.m. My take on that is that any false delay would reasonably have been injected before the plane left the gate and not while it was milling around amongst other planes waiting for take-off. However, the truth movement surely has a view on something so important ?



Toriac	Sep 14 2009, 08:28 AM Post #16
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	Alfie Sep 14 2009, 05:03 AM This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. Proof of a false delay introduced that morning would be powerful evidence not only of UA 93 being set-up but of the whole day's events. With that in mind I have had a look at what happened at the airport. UA 93 pushed back from the gate at 8.01 am, very slightly late ; it was then held up for 41 minutes by traffic congestion and was waiting its turn. It finally took off at 8.42 a.m. My take on that is that any false delay would reasonably have been injected before the plane left the gate and not while it was milling around amongst other planes waiting for take-off. However, the truth movement surely has a view on something so important ? That is why I started this. There are many details like this that the truth simply ignors in putting forth their theories. You have to look at everything. Like you pointed out, it would be much more sensible to delay the plane at the gait, then an uncertain traffic backup. They don't seem to think their ideas through and only want to look at things in a vacuum.
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


noeffects	Sep 14 2009, 11:41 AM Post #17
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Alfie This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. I'll take a crack at it... ACARS 1323:00 Beware of any cockpit intrusion, 2 aircraft in NY, hit Trade Center buildings. hijacker from...GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P20056T 01-455-A ID 09:45:19 How about we let them in? We let the guys in now. 09:45:23 Okay. 09:45:24 Should we let the guys in? 09:45:25 Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back. The pilot that was taken out of his cockpit could have informed other staff/passengers of the prior warning they received... but in a perfect de-bunker world ...a few passengers in mid-flight are forewarned about possible airline hijackings from friends and family calling them on their cell-phones...
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


ToS	Sep 14 2009, 12:41 PM Post #18
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Alfie Sep 14 2009, 05:03 AM This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. Proof of a false delay introduced that morning would be powerful evidence not only of UA 93 being set-up but of the whole day's events. OK, the perps delayed the plane. Now talking about proof that would be powerful evidence that UA93 crashed: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


ToS	Sep 14 2009, 12:44 PM Post #19
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 14 2009, 08:28 AM There are many details like this that the truth simply ignors in putting forth their theories. And there are many details like this that the skeptics simply ignore in putting forth their official stories.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Alfie	Sep 14 2009, 01:26 PM Post #20
Posts: 265 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	ToS Sep 14 2009, 12:41 PM Alfie Sep 14 2009, 05:03 AM This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. Proof of a false delay introduced that morning would be powerful evidence not only of UA 93 being set-up but of the whole day's events. OK, the perps delayed the plane. Now talking about proof that would be powerful evidence that UA93 crashed: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers ToS If you believe that the "perps" delayed the take-off of UA 93, how do you think they did it ?



DoYouEverWonder	Sep 14 2009, 01:41 PM Post #21
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	I think the delay was one of the things that went wrong that day and that's why Bush ended up stalling for time ready a children's book and Rummie, Cheney, Myers, Tenet, and many others had to sit on their hands for over half an hour, while they watched the attack on CNN.
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Toriac	Sep 14 2009, 01:43 PM Post #22
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09	ToS Sep 14 2009, 12:44 PM Toriac Sep 14 2009, 08:28 AM There are many details like this that the truth simply ignors in putting forth their theories. And there are many details like this that the skeptics simply ignore in putting forth their official stories. I am not ignoring anything. I know that a plane can crash into the ground and you not see what looks like a plane. It has happened in many crashes. Why don't you understand this?
Posts: 116 Group: BANNED! Member #1,292 Joined: 08/19/09


ToS	Sep 14 2009, 01:51 PM Post #23
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Alfie Sep 14 2009, 01:26 PM ToS If you believe that the "perps" delayed the take-off of UA 93, how do you think they did it ? I have no idea. I wasn't in their perp command center that morning. Now, any chance you be solving the Shanksville challenge anytime soon? That is the biggest official claim about what happened to Flight 93, literally.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


ToS	Sep 14 2009, 01:54 PM Post #24
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	Toriac Sep 14 2009, 01:43 PM ToS Sep 14 2009, 12:44 PM Toriac Sep 14 2009, 08:28 AM There are many details like this that the truth simply ignors in putting forth their theories. And there are many details like this that the skeptics simply ignore in putting forth their official stories. I am not ignoring anything. Well you haven't solved the challenge yet, so looks like you are ignoring things. Tell you what, pass that Shanksville challenge first, then I'll try to answer your OP.
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Alfie	Sep 14 2009, 02:00 PM Post #25
Posts: 265 Group: Skeptics Member #1,237 Joined: 07/17/09	noeffects Sep 14 2009, 11:41 AM Alfie This thread could be very interesting and informative if people didn't just avoid the central issue. If 9/11 was an inside job and the flight of UA 93 was a set-up, then part of the plan had to have included delaying the take-off. Not might, perhaps, but had to. Otherwise the passengers learning of the fate of other hi-jacked aircraft would not be credible. I'll take a crack at it... ACARS 1323:00 Beware of any cockpit intrusion, 2 aircraft in NY, hit Trade Center buildings. hijacker from...GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P20056T 01-455-A ID 09:45:19 How about we let them in? We let the guys in now. 09:45:23 Okay. 09:45:24 Should we let the guys in? 09:45:25 Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back. The pilot that was taken out of his cockpit could have informed other staff/passengers of the prior warning they received... but in a perfect de-bunker world ...a few passengers in mid-flight are forewarned about possible airline hijackings from friends and family calling them on their cell-phones... noeffects Thanks for the interesting post. I hadn't seen that bit of dialogue. presumably from the cockpit voice recorder. I assumed that the pilot and co-pilot were dead at this time. Todd Beamer said in a telephone conversation at 0943 that they were on the floor "dead or dying". However, I accept that the passengers being told about the WTC by one of the pilots is plausible. But, what I understood this thread to be about was the timeline of the whole thing. There are members of this forum who think that the telephone calls, from the passengers side, were morphed. If that is the case it doesn't really matter whether the passengers had a clue as to what was happening elswhere or not. But it was important that the plot didn't get ahead of the action. According to the telephone calls, morphed or not, Tom Burnett was told by his wife at 0945 that the Pentagon had been hit. ( This had happened at 0937 ). So, there was no way there could be a crash time at Shanksville before 0945 minimum. UA 93 was in the air from 0842 to 1003, 1 hr 21 minutes. If it had taken off at its scheduled time of 0800, and followed its same route, it would have arrived at Shanksville at 0921, before the Pentagon strike happened. Some members of this forum will tell you that Shanksville is set in stone because that site had been pre-prepared as a phony crash site. Anyway, what I am getting at is that for the whole thing to be remotely believable, if it was a set-up, then the departure from Newark had to be delayed. If that is so, I am very interested in the truth movement's view as to how that was achieved ?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
7