| 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
| Post your theory of what happened with Flight 93 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 12 2008, 11:48 PM (1,129 Views) | |
| Chippy | Aug 12 2008, 11:48 PM Post #1 |
|
Let me first say that I will not be debating anyone's theories. I simply want to hear them. Please describe in as much detail as possible what you think happened to Flight 93 and why. Let me start. My theory is that on September 11th, arab hijackers took over Flight 93. The passengers of that plane, having heard what happened to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, knew their fate. So they decided to be heroes and assaulted the hijackers, who initially responded by flying erratically. This is why the plane rose 4,000 feet near the end of its flight, which by the way is evidence against the shoot-down theory. The pilot then nosed the plane to the ground, and the plane slammed into the ground at 580 mph, faster than some bullets. The extreme velocity and force drove most of the plane parts underground, creating a crater but not a substantial amount of debris, which is more indicative of a crash more parallel to the ground. Eyewitnesses saw the plane crash. Relatives spoke to their family members on the phone during the flight's last moments. Search crews who cleaned up the area found 1,500 pieces of charred human remains that added up to a total weight of 600 lbs. The cockpit voice recorder actually recorded what went on in that plane, that passengers were struggling and screaming and the arabs were hell-bent on crashing the plane. It wasn't shot down because there wasn't nearly enough debris for that, and it gained 4,000 feet during its erratic flight. It didn't land in Cleveland because multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane actually crash in Shanksville, and the only evidence that the plane landed in Cleveland was a factually incorrect news article that was retracted minutes after it was released, on the most hectic news day in modern American history. The plane crashed in Shanksville, and the passengers made it crash there. Therefore, they are heroes. That's my theory. Edited by Chippy, Aug 12 2008, 11:49 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 13 2008, 03:53 AM Post #2 |
|
i have a theory that the event took place at 10:06:05(EST). i base that off the seismic observations available at mgs.md.gov. what time does the event take place in your "theory"? what evidence do you have to support it if it is contradictory? |
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 13 2008, 04:26 PM Post #3 |
Patriotic American
|
Sounds like you are an avid movie watcher who believes everything you see on the boob tube. Do you really believe that this gorgeous cleaned and pressed American style red bandana without any Islamic symbols or writing came from the remains of Flight 93? (Click me)  Do you really believe these alleged 'Islamic terrorist hijackers' would actually wear red bandanas as alleged in your favorite flick?  
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 13 2008, 06:49 PM Post #4 |
|
hey bro wanna make a wager chippy doesn't return and if he does he ignores us?
|
|
|
|
| Shopnut | Aug 14 2008, 01:39 AM Post #5 |
|
Why should one expect there to be Islamic symbols or writing on the bandana? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 14 2008, 02:02 AM Post #6 |
|
BLOODS  ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS  this walmart bought bandana indicates flight 93 was most likely hijacked by a brutal street gang and not religious fanatics in performance of a religious act. [/sarcasm] i just expect the bandana to be on par with what we find with extremists considering the argument is made that extremists carried this out. it doesn't seem like they would shave their entire bodies [allegedly] of body hair the night before and then wear some red walmart bought bandana when they're doing the deed. this seems perfectly normal to you thought, right? Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Aug 14 2008, 02:02 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 14 2008, 02:03 AM Post #7 |
|
Chippy? Hello? |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Aug 14 2008, 03:12 AM Post #8 |
Arlingtonian
|
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=112978&t=478284 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=112987&t=478284 (follow thru the rest of the thread for bernie and spreston's exchange as well) not really an answer as to "why", but relevant to your question shopnut. |
|
|
|
| Shopnut | Aug 14 2008, 12:31 PM Post #9 |
|
None of it does. |
|
|
|
| Shopnut | Aug 14 2008, 12:39 PM Post #10 |
|
I do not think either of those posts were relevent. It hardly matters to me if a bandana was found or not, or whether it was worn by a person hijacking the airliner. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 14 2008, 11:14 PM Post #11 |
|
chippy? |
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Aug 15 2008, 07:35 AM Post #12 |
Sir finds a lot
|
here's one thing I don't understand. I have seen pictures of red bandanas on extremists, but they had writing on them. I think it's more important to note that this has no writing on it at all. How can anyone just say that it is what it is. If it was attached to someone's head, what makes cloth so much more durable than skin. I would accept official stories if they went on and actually had a cohesive story that could be bought. I don't want to just be some shouting conspiracist, but one debunker showing people pictures of a red bandana with writing on it does not debunk diddly squat yet it is accepted as prime pwnage. |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 15 2008, 09:33 AM Post #13 |
|
Andoo,
Not always.  
We don't know what it is for sure. It most likely belonged to a terrorist.
We don't know if it was on a terrorists head. It could have fallen off in the struggle, it could have been a spare, it could be a passengers, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to our understanding of what went on.
The 'official story' as you call it is summarised by chippy in the opening post, it is perfectly cohesive and believable as far as i'm concerned.
Even if there was no pictures of terrorists with red bandanas it would be totally irrelevant. A lot of firsts happened that day. Is it so hard to believe that in the planning of this major act of terrorism the purchasing of the bandanas might have been somewhat down their list of priorities? Maybe in the few days before 911 they were forced to buy them from walmart, so what? Do you think they would have called Osama and called it off because they didn't have the most appropriate headwear? |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 15 2008, 09:43 AM Post #14 |
|
It could also be a pragmatic choice of headgear. If they were stopped before boarding with overtly jihadist material it could be used against them in a subsequent trial. And yes i'm aware that the images i posted above are of a keffiyeh and not specifically a bandana type headscarf but it's quite clear that plain red head dress is not at odds with terrorist attire. The number of images of terrorist headscarfs are limited for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 15 2008, 10:35 AM Post #15 |
|
Patriotic American
|
That is not a bandana in your photo. That is a cotton Kafiyah or Arab head scarf or head wrap. The 9-11 perps (planners) manufactured the 'hijacked aircraft' phone calls to include 'hijackers' wearing red bandanas. That red bandana from Flight 93 never ever went through an explosive aircraft destruction. It was planted evidence, much like other planted evidence throughout 9-11. Who wears red bandanas to symbolize their terrorist acts? Marxists/Leninists? The Red Army? Islamic fundamentalists are opposed to the Marxists. To believe that a cotton red bandana looking like that could survive an aircraft crash without getting dirty, singed, bloody, or even all crumpled up is the ultimate in idiocy. The official Flight 93 red bandana was inserted into the Moussaoui trial to insinuate that it was somehow worn by one of the 'hijackers'. Such nonsense. The planted 'hijacker' passport found on the ground at the WTC was left out of the Moussaoui trial because it was just too ridiculous to be credible. Osama stated publicly he had nothing to do with 9-11. Then the poorly faked 'confessions' started up. Numerous Arabic linguists stated the videos and text were faked. The actors were obviously not Osama. Osama bin Laden died in December 2001. Osama was allegedly hiding in a cave during 9-11 on the opposite side of the earth, hooked up to a kidney dialysis machine. How do you think the 'hijackers' could have called Osama? On their cell phones? Do you think cell phone towers were scattered throughout the Himalayas to help out the 'hijackers'? How would you communicate with a cave in the Himalayas? Very difficult, correct? These patsies or psyops agents pretending to be 'terrorist hijackers' could not even stay out of bars or keep their mouths shut. They were too lazy to learn how to fly a commercial aircraft. They were too puny to take over an aircraft with utility knives. (box cutters) Very few men would be intimidated by a utility knife wielding shrimp. Some women would kick their ass. There were no 'hijackers' and no 'hijacked aircraft'. It was all a great big lie. Edited by SPreston, Aug 15 2008, 10:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 15 2008, 11:53 AM Post #16 |
|
SPreston,
I know, see my last post.
Let's pretend that the bandana didn't survive the crash and that the passengers didn't mention the terrorists wearing them. How would this change our understanding of the events? It wouldn't matter one iota. Hollywood may have even depicted them in green head scarfs for united 93. So what?
Initially, for obvious reasons.
There is nothing poorly faked about them.
Numerous? I've read scholars say that the videos are genuine.
The old arguments that i've seen that they are not Osama were extremely weak. They were sensibly removed from Loose Change final cut.
It's possible but there is no evidence to suggest it.
Based on a single report from an anonymous source. Not the kind of evidence that convinces me.
I don't necessarily believe that Osama was living in a cave, he is an extremely wealthy man. Communication could come in the form of calling go betweens, e-mail, etc. I'm sure there was some kind of communication between the command centre and the terrorists.
They kept their mouth shut enough to get away with it. Maybe they did drink some alcohol, i don't find it remarkable that extremists believing that their on their way to meeting 72 virgins by massacring thousands of people would be concerned about obeying the conservative aspects of their faith. It's like saying the Yorkshire Ripper missed mass before the voice in his head from God told him to kill prostitutes, this isn't a contradiction. Extremists don't make rational decisions, it's what makes them irrational extremists.
They didn't have to learn the difficult bits, like taking off and landing, just steering. They managed this quite well.
Their 'puniness' wasn't an issue, the weapon they had was surprise, commercial airliners hadn't been used in suicide missions before.
This became tragically obvious to the passengers of 93. If i was on the earlier flights i would be thinking i'm going to be stuck on an airport runway for 14 hours while protracted negotiations are going on, thats the worse i could imagine. There was no way any of the passengers knew what was in store, that's why the terrorists were able to take over the planes. This is why the tactics of 911 are somewhat redundant now, because if a terrorist attempted this now they would be overcome by an almighty mob.
There is no evidence to believe this. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 15 2008, 12:52 PM Post #17 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Bernie, they had to learn the cockpit. Turn off the transponder. Operate the radar. Navigate the aircraft. Do you think the targets were easily located from over a hundred miles away? Turn on and off the autopilots. Delicately operate the yoke and throttles to manuever the aircraft to the target. Do you think manuevering a 535 mph 100 ton 757 down a hill through light poles then a pull-up to a level flight inches above the lawn into the Pentagon 1st floor would not take an extremely delicate touch on the yoke? There is probably not one single highly experienced pilot who could have done it in the entire world. Hani Hanjour was a novice. Hani Hanjour could not have piloted his Cessna 172 along that exact same flight path at 141 mph even if he flew between the light poles. Do you think piloting that 767 into that descending turn into WTC2 at 563 mph would not have been an extremely delicate manuever? How could untrained and unskilled 'hijackers' accomplish that when 767/757 controls required an extremely delicate touch? Do you think the autopilots had special homing switches built in labeled WTC1 and WTC2? Come on Bernie; use some common sense. 757 cockpit  Cessna 172 cockpit  
Surprise? A boxcutter? Most men would laugh. A person could hardly kill a man with a boxcutter, unless he was allowed to saw on his neck for a half hour. How would they get in the cockpit with a boxcutter and then overpower pilots able to fight with the aircraft on autopilot? It is ludicrous that you are so easily deceived.
No Bernie. You are caught up in a gigantic fantasy tale and all you have left is denial. Passengers would not know what was in store for them. Something a lot better than a utility knife would be needed to force them into submission. They would not have allowed themselves to be captured by dinky little utility knives This allegedly happened not on just one flight, but four flights simultaneously. It's total nonsense. There were no hijackings on 9-11. It was all faked Edited by SPreston, Aug 15 2008, 02:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Aug 15 2008, 01:22 PM Post #18 |
|
SPreston,
The hardest aspect of flying is the taking off and landing.
You're making the mistake in thinking that this is the path they had to follow, if they had to make this path it would be tricky but this is the path they just happened to make in hitting the pentagon.
It may be true that this is a hard path for a pilot to recreate but this is neither here nor there if it wasn't an intended path. It's like me hitting a home run and asking the best batsman in the world to also hit row Z seat 48 and then casting doubt on whether i could actually hit a home run.
There is a video somewhere of complete novices in Holland using a flight simulator to hit the pentagon, it was extremely easy for them (i'll dig it out). Also, Hanji Hanour's training instructor was asked if he was capable of flying into the pentagon and he said yes.
You misunderstand. The boxcutter wasn't the surprise, the suicide mission was the surprise. You wonder how they could get into the cockpit? Really? Did you know it was airline policy for pilots to cooperate with terrorists. They merely had to threaten staff with the boxcutters, they didn't even have to use them.
You're right they didn't know until relatives told the passengers of 93 what was in store for them.
Something more than a knife would be needed now. On the morning on Sep 11th sadly not. You must understand that as the first plane was hijacked you wouldn't have any idea of what was ahead, otherwise the terrorists wouldn't have stood a chance.
There is no reason to believe this. Edited by Bernie big shorts, Aug 15 2008, 01:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Shopnut | Aug 15 2008, 02:20 PM Post #19 |
|
So why is it so unlikely that the terrorists would not have learned how to operate the navigation equipment from a book? Why would the pentagon be so hard to locate from the air on a clear day? Dead reckoning can get them close enough, then they can just do the rest by sight. There is nothing special about making a descending turn. I did it several times the first time I took flying lessons. Establish a nose down attitude and bank, easy to do. While piloting an aircraft into the ground or a building requires a delicate tough on the controls to place yourself on the target (a huge one in this case) it does not take a skillful touch. They were not trying to land after all, just crash. Why do you think the pilots just didn’t obey the terrorists? It was standard practice back then right? Have evidence that pilots resisted more often than they backed down before 9/11? I think it is BS that any pilot would risk enraging a terrorist by laughing at them. It certainly was not what they were taught to do. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf Air carrier responsibilities for security and anti- hijacking training for flight crews were set forth in the Air Carrier Standard Security Program. In addition to specifying several hours of security training, it provided an outline of inflight hijacking tactics for both the cockpit and cabin crews. Among other things, this outline advised air crews to refrain from trying to overpower or negotiate with hijackers, to land the aircraft as soon as possible, to communicate with authorities, and to try delaying tactics. |
|
|
|
| ShaDow | Aug 15 2008, 02:40 PM Post #20 |
|
Benazir Bhutto said he was killed, she was assassinated later.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zScYmvmANcA full interview.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uLdmct8_E Edited by ShaDow, Aug 15 2008, 02:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chippy | Aug 16 2008, 11:52 AM Post #21 |
|
WHAT event took place at 10:06? Who was on the plane? What brought it down? Why was it brought down? You have not offered much of a theory, only a single hypothesis backed up by a questionable report. I say questionable because there has been a response to the 3 minute discrepancy that you mention. From the footnotes of the 9/11 commission report, page 462, the commission writes regarding the 10:06 conclusion made through seismic data: “The seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-479.html I highlighted that bit because there were only TWO authors in the report you just mentioned, and so it appears that half of the authorship of the report you showed here don't even think it is definitive. Other experts, as you just saw, disagree entirely. So, back to my original questions: WHAT event took place at 10:06? Who was on the plane? What brought it down? Why was it brought down? Edited by Chippy, Aug 16 2008, 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Chippy | Aug 16 2008, 12:01 PM Post #22 |
|
My answer to that would be to ask Pasquale Buzzelli. He's a man who was on the 22nd floor of the World Trade Center when it collapsed, and he made it out of the rubble with nothing more than a broken foot. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/ How did that happen? That question isn't as important as the fact that it DID happen. Explosions, collapses, etc. are not clean events, as I'm sure you know, so there's no reason to expect it to destroy absolutely everything with 100% efficiency. Sometimes people, or bandanas, get lucky and make it out of disasters unscathed.
I have no idea what movie you are referring to, but if your evidence for conspiracy is really based on the fashion choices of islamic extremists, then all I can do is laugh. By the way, just like the guy who posted before you, you also failed to offer a comprehensive theory of your own. What are you afraid of? Why don't you offer us your theory? Edited by Chippy, Aug 16 2008, 12:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chippy | Aug 16 2008, 12:03 PM Post #23 |
|
Don't "tease" me, bro. 
|
|
|
|
| Chippy | Aug 16 2008, 07:36 PM Post #24 |
|
So even though there's a cockpit voice recorder that recorded the situation inside Flight 93, even though the flight data recorder clearly shows erratic flight during the plane's final moments, even though eyewitnesses describe erratic behavior of the plane during its final moments, even though several passengers of the plane called their relatives to tell them what was going on, you think that the bandanna they are wearing is odd, and THAT means that the plane wasn't taken over by terrorists? That really trumps all this other evidence I listed? Really? Like, REALLY really? So, if terrorists didn't do this, then who did? How did the plane crash? Why did it crash? And above all, if you do not believe that terrorists took over the plane, would you please put into writing your opinion that the passengers of Flight 93 are NOT heroes. Edited by Chippy, Aug 16 2008, 07:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chippy | Aug 16 2008, 07:40 PM Post #25 |
|
Patience is a virtue. Edited by Chippy, Aug 16 2008, 07:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:55 PM Nov 28
