Friday, April 11, 2008

"The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93"

The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him):
"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.

The US Air Force shot down Flight 93. I haven't told this to many people. I told my parents and other family members shortly after I left the military. They didn't believe it. I figured no one else would either. I kept my mouth shut. Everyone was dedicated to the president and the country (not really) And anything that went against the Official, media delivered story was viewed as unpatriotic. I knew that I loved this country, so I kept my mouth shut. I just can't do that anymore. I know that I don't have any documents to prove it, and I have no way of knowing where the others involved are now days, so I can't prove anything. All I have is my word. and with God as my witness that is the truth."


Blogger A. Magnus Publius said...

The Alex Jones show had a former air national guard officer make that exact same claim a couple of years back. It remains to be seen if there are any patriots in the armed forces who will come forward with evidence of this version of events. Especially since the passengers supposedly regained control of flight 93 before it went down. Did the intercepting pilot know that was happening?

2:51 PM  
Blogger Tracy V said...

Thank you for coming forward!!

Most people of intelligence knew that flight 93 was shot down, military confirmation is all that was needed to make it known.

People, when are you going to wake up, 9/11 was an inside job to create legislation to weaken American's rights and to create a war for more resources for the Elite, not for Americans.

This type of thing has always happened when the people in charge need to justify their won existence.


TracY V

2:54 PM  
Blogger David Feldman said...

Most people I know
buy the official story of 9/11, but if pressed about Flight 93, they will say,
sure, maybe the military shot it down. But then they will tell you that that was the right thing to do considering the damage it would have done if it had reached its target. And they will tell you that covering up the shootdown was also the right thing to do, because the country needed to unite for war, and news of the military shooting down civilians would have generated disunity.
So while I think its always important to challenge government
lies, I don't think that revising the story of Flight 93
will shake the rafters. In fact, because the official story already includes the shootdown order --just that it came too late because the plane had already crashed-- the country will dismiss the deviation from the truth as a white lie. Of course some
9/11 truthers don't
believe that a plane
crashed in PA at all, so I want to know how one reconciles the "lie" about not shooting the plane down, with the "lie" about no plane crashing there?

3:16 PM  
Blogger Tony and Lucy said...

considering all that has transpired since, the fact that someone was promoted for being in command of US defenses at the time, having read elsewhere alleging that the 2 people in the F16 that allegedly shot down Flight 93 were awarded medals, and it's debris scattered over 8 miles on 2 sides of a mountain, it is very plausible that the guilt has now forced him to say something. IMO.

i hope more people step forward to tell what they know, so we don't have to wait 40-50 years, before the truth comes out.

3:24 PM  
Blogger kenny's sideshow said...

On Sept. 12, 2001 I was at work and my buddy called me into his office while he was on a 3 way call with his wife, sister-in-law and brother-in-law who was in the Air Force. Putting the speaker phone on I heard the airman repeat that the "rumor" had spread like wildfire throughout the ranks that they had shot down flight 93. He said the pilot was either from North or South Dakota. He actually was quite excited about it and felt that they had done their job.

3:59 PM  
Blogger Young at Heart said...

I just read this statement and you might guess it makes me sick and heartbroken. My son was on Flight 93 and we knew that he was going to take over that plane and come home. Are you saying that because Flight 93 was shot down is the reason that he is not home?

5:58 PM  
Blogger Tracy V said...

The plane was shot down BECAUSE they made it into the cokcpit and noticed the plane was flying by remote control!!!

they touched the controls to test it and the Chair Force shot them down.

It is that simple.

7:46 PM  
Blogger Cormega said...

Tracy V says all that needs to be said. Thank You Tracy!!

9:05 PM  
Blogger cypherstone said...

I believe this Airman is telling the exact truth. That morning my wife and I were watching a TV broadcast that was 'live' with an emergency operator talking with someone on flight 93. The person onboard said something like "They're shooting at us; they've hit the wing", and the connection ended. To my knowledge, that was never rebroadcast. We've never heard anything about that conversation since, or talked to anyone who saw the broadcast. A few days later, my brother-in-law, an air-traffic controller, told us the USAF shot 93 down for certain. Many ATC's were monitoring USAF radio traffic. The official story is diversion and feel-good. To me, none of this diminishes the final moments of those loved ones lost on that black morning. We will best honor these fallen comrades by pressing for ALL the truth of September 11,2001. I think it's quite likely the pilots were not attacked by anyone, but had lost control of their aircraft to an overriding signal to their transponder.

9:34 PM  
Blogger irtaplett said...

The Funny thing is... I was convinced that day on 9-11 that we had shot down a plane.

As a high school student in Arlington, VA at the time. This day was very vivid for me still. As soon as I got to school rumors were floating around about what was going on. but the #1 thing people were saying was we shot one down! We shot one down. Teachers & Students were saying this. (A lot of Students parents work for very high positions in the gov't; pentagon, CIA, defense dept, military bases) I even had asked my fellow classmate, who's father work at the Pentagon, he even confirmed this. He told me the one in PA. DC was on lock down for three days, no one in or out.... and you go home and watch the TV... No plane shot down? nothing....
The thing that gets me about Flight 93 was that "Hollywood" version of that tragedy!!

Bush has put the US in and awkward position!! The thing is 911 and Iraq have NOTHING to do with each other!!! Bush has even said this!!!!

10:34 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

No F-16s have ever been stationed at Langley AFB. They host F-15s and F-22s. A member of the USAF would not confuse the numbering of the two.

7:34 AM  
Blogger Darren said...

Guys, F-16s were never stationed at Langley AFB. The only fighter they would have had there was the F-15, and more recently the F-22. No F-16 could have been launched from Langley.

7:50 AM  
Blogger Ted said...

"F-16s were never stationed at Langley AFB."

That is so incorrect.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Darren said...

Look at the two sites posted above. Recently they've only had the 1st Fighter Wing, which never used F-16s. Sure, F-16s might have been there in passing, but they were never there as "alert fighters" like the source says.

9:05 AM  
Blogger 1N0X1 said...

Makes you wonder what was REALLY said on the black box of flight 93

10:20 AM  
Blogger LoneRabbit said...

consistent with other reports of several years ago which claimed a pilot from the "Happy Hooligans" shot down flight 93 from an F-16. Here is some reference to it I just dug up.

I think this report is credible, given the weight of other evidence of exactly this scenario. Even the huge spread of the debris field showing the plane disintegrated in mid air is consistent not to mention eye witness reports of the jets.

11:28 PM  
Blogger Len said...

You wanna know why the guy is annonymous?

Because he’s lying ‘alert squadrons’ consisted of pairs of fighters ready to scramble 1994 or earlier – June 2002 (or later I don’t if that was changed)

According to a 1994 GAO report

NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to scramble within 5 minutes.

In 1997 the number of bases began to be reduced from 14 to 7.

According to a 1999 article in a USAF magazine:

“Day or night, 24-7, a pair of pilots and two crew chiefs stand alert in a secure compound on Homestead, the base Hurricane Andrew nearly razed in August 1992.

The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.”

From a June 20, 2002 article on CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two U.S. Air National Guard F-16s were not able to intercept a small plane that violated restricted air space around Washington until more than 10 minutes after the Cessna 182 passed near the White House, administration sources told CNN Thursday.

Langley did however manage to launch 3 F-16’s that morning before the Pentagon was hit:

We even know the names of the pilots:

“The pilots are Major Brad Derrig, Captain Craig Borgstrom, and Major Dean Eckmann, all from the North Dakota Air National Guard’s 119th Fighter Wing stationed at Langley.”

Brogtrom was the “operations officer” for the unit he recalled events that morning, and indeed there were only two planes on alert:

"How many planes can you get airborne?" the NORAD dispatcher asked in clipped tones over a secure line dubbed the "bat phone."

"I have two on battle stations," replied Capt. Borgstrom from the control tower near the hangar.

"That's not what I asked," the dispatcher snapped. "How many planes can you get airborne – total?"

"I can give you three."

"Then go!"

he circled the city [Washington and] “landed back at Langley” “Four hours later”

He also has his terminology wrong, the pair of planes kept on alert at AFB’s isn’t a squadron:

"The basic fighting unit of the US Air Force is the squadron. A constituted squadron is the basic unit in the Air Force, and is numbered with one, two, or three Arabic numerals. A squadron may be a mission unit or a functional unit, and may vary in size according to responsibility.
Squadrons are configured to deploy and employ in support of crisis action requirements. They are not designed to conduct independent operations but rather to interact with other units to provide the synergy needed to conduct sustained and effective operations. As such, an individual squadron should not deploy by itself; it should deploy along with the appropriate support and command elements (a “group slice”). Afield, it would look more like a group.


The composition of a squadron is determined by the type of airplane it operates and the nature of its mission. All squadrons have headquarters, mess, supply, technical, and maintenance personnel. Local conditions and the mission determine the number of planes to be grouped in one squadron for maximum efficiency, and the number of men, the equipment, and the supplies required to keep the planes flying. A squadron may contain a dozen or more planes.


Until 1992, the Air Force predominantly organized its active fighter aircraft in wings of three squadrons, with 24 combat aircraft in each squadron. However, in 1992, the Air Force Chief of Staff directed that the squadrons be reduced to 18 aircraft. By 1997, most fighter squadrons were reduced to this smaller size, leaving only 54 aircraft in most wings.

Is this guy telling us that a total of 7 F-16’s were launched 3 before and 4 after the Pentagon was hit? Or that no fighters were launched before but that four were launched AFTER. And that the 4 went to Pennsylvania? I either scenario many people at Langley, most of whom were National Guard and not full time military, as well as numerous ATC would know this. Are we to believe that Borgstrom and others are lying and many more know the truth but have remained silent for 6 ½ years based on the word of an anonymous poster on a blog? Some who starts his entry with errors of fact and terminology. Sorry try again.

Other problems with the wild tale are:

Several witnesses saw flight 93 none of them described seeing any damage to it.

No debris was found along the plane’s flight path

There are no reports of an f-16 in the area, the “white jet” was described as having two rear mounted engines

10:57 AM  
Blogger Len said...

“cypherstone said...

I believe this Airman is telling the exact truth. That morning my wife and I were watching a TV broadcast that was 'live' with an emergency operator talking with someone on flight 93. The person onboard said something like "They're shooting at us; they've hit the wing", and the connection ended.”

Complete BS. How else can we explain that 6 ½ years later no one else reported hearing this despite the fact that millions of people in the US and around the world were glued to their TV’s that morning? No there were no live phone calls from flight 93. Cypherstone is either lying or has an over active imagination (or both).

This sounds like bastardized version of the Ed Felt story.

11:07 AM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

okay... several think I am lying.
At the time I was A1C, I worked at 1st EMS, AGE flight.
It is possible these planes were launched before the pentagon was hit, although my recollection is that they launched after. I wasn't watching TV at the time, I was rushing equipment around the flightline, as we were also trying to get some broken F-15's off the ground before our deadline to have EVERY flight capable F-15 airborne. I am anonymous, because I had a SECRET clearance at the time, and I could face legal action if this just happened to be classified information, though I have no knowledge that it is. In regards to total number of aircraft at the "alert" squadron I don't know. Four aircraft could normally be seen at the alert hangar. The squadron was a detachment of the 119th FW of the North Dakota Air National Guard. This detachment was stationed at langley in 2001 and flew F-16's. I do not know the pilot or his name, and as I said, a weapons loader conveyed the story to me, I am just passing it along. The story may or may not be what happened, but I am telling the truth about what I experienced, and what conversations I had. If you really need to know my name, post an e-mail addy and i can e-mail my info to you. I just don't want someone who would try to do harm to me to know anything about me if they find out I am saying something I am not supposed to be saying. There weren't that many people in my flight, maybe 100, probably less. I worked in Blue CAT (Combat AGE Team). And normally supported the 94th Fighter Squadron, in which there were 27-29 F-15C/D aircraft. I left the military before the F-22's came on line.
All I have is my word, so please if you don't think the story is true, say that instead of calling me a liar.

6:15 PM  
Blogger itsthatguy said...

Jeremy-go ahead and contact me, I have a couple of questions.

2:48 PM  
Blogger LoneRabbit said...


Mate I and many others have no problem believing you. Some of what you report is as I said consistent with other information which has already long since slipped out. We DO know the name of the pilot.

Len, above is not someone you need pay attention to, nobody else did. What he has written is deliberately skewed regarding the implications and he has made it look as if he is disputing details claimed by you, but which are not accurately portrayed by him.

There is something distinctly familiar about Len's writing, and I would suggest he is an agent of disinfo. 9/11 Truth is infested with Cointelpro type swine these days who fail to realise how obvious they are to us.

You would be well advised to consider your security. The safest thing appears to be to make yourself heard. The more people who know what you say and who yiou are the harder it is for the swine to shut you down. The people who did 9/11 are cold blooded, utterly ruthless and totally insane. Good enemies to have to be sure and I hope they know me too and hate me at least a bit, but certainly also the sort to take very seriously.

Spread the word Jeremy and know that there are others who confirm what you have told us.

5:11 PM  
Blogger LoneRabbit said...

Just taking the last few lines of Len's post, let us consider what he says.

Several witnesses saw flight 93 none of them described seeing any damage to it.

So? Actually though some witnesses described something falling from it as I recall, however it is imaterial since any witnesses would have to have seen it at the right moment, I recall no witnesses who saw it up to the moment of destruction. This point is irrelevant to Jeremy's story but Len tries to make it stick.

No debris was found along the plane’s flight path

Which flight path might that be Lenny? The theoretical one which it deviated from or the actual final one? If the latter then in deed debris was found along it's flight path. The debris field was about 8 miles long. Thus this answer from Lenny is just an outright falsehood. Falling from such a height as the plane was at, it would hardly have fallen into a neat line on the flight path of course, so to suggest this is relevant is disingenuous. What is relevant is the spread of the debris, even heavy engine parts found kilometers from the supposed crash site. That PROVES the plane broke up mid air which is STRONG support for the allegation it was hot down. DESPITE Len's little tank of red herrings.

There are no reports of an f-16 in the area, the “white jet” was described as having two rear mounted engines.

Yes we know all about that jet. So what? That was seen long before 93 went down. There were no witnesses who saw the final moments, which is when the F-16s were in the air, and did you know they can travel quite quickly Lenny? They were also at a considerable height and they don't have to be all that close to launch a missile either. There is no doubt that F16s were up there, are there any reports of them being seen at all anywhere? More Red Herrings Len. This is just a few of the points Len made but they hold far less water than his rhetorical tone suggests. As for what aircraft were at Langley and what was their purpose. Jeremy's story is 100% accurate. I have some trouble trying to ascertain what it is Lenny is trying to dispute here, but since the facts are as they stand, four National Guard F16s (Happy Hooligans)were stationed at langley
for purposes of intercept then what is the point? Nothing of the large volume of info posted about NORAD and the Air NG disputes Jeremy's story as I see it.

As for the discrepancy in when the planes were claimed to have been launched, well sunshine you do know that the official story is disputed don't you? The fact that official claims of 9/11 do not entirely agree with witnesses is hardly new and in each case it has been shown to be the official claims which are false.

Look kids, there have been slip ups by administration and military figures which have admitted Flight 93 was shot down and that a missile was used on the Pentagon. The body of evidence, both material, witness and circumstantial leaves no doubt about the macro scenario.

5:53 PM  
Blogger LoneRabbit said...

No debris along the flight path? This source should make very clear that Flight 93 was beaking up in the air, consistent with a missile strike, BEFORE it came down.

Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky.

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."

6:03 PM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

How do I contact you?

12:27 PM  
Blogger James said...

I work for a government contractor at Andrews AFB and spoke to an E4B crew member who said that flight 93 was shot down. Now a E4B is the one plane that controls every move the US makes from the air. There were two at Andrews that day on 9-11 and that has never happened before. The Air Force only has 4 and they are to never be at the same place at the same time. I too was an age mechanic at Langley at one time so I wish I could talk to this person.

7:55 PM  
Blogger Jeremy said...

James, and itsthatguy, I opened a blog, send me your contact info

9:01 PM  
Blogger Im Scared said...

To true!!

8:51 AM  
Blogger Markshark4 said...


It talks about Flight 93, Flight 77, Remote Control, Mutiny, & More!


Flight 93 WAS shot down!

Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations

3:46 PM  
Blogger A. Magnus Publius said...

The FAA ordered the tower tapes from 9/11 shredded a couple of years ago. Anyone bet the real dirt on Flight 93 was contained on those tapes? And what about the ordnance? You would think if any fighters shot at anything that day that they would have returned to base with fewer missiles and cannon rounds.

And for the folks intimating that no fighters were seen from the ground, you do know the air force can attack targets from beyond visible range, right? The horizon meets the sky out to several miles from the observer. Think about it. And what about this little clip?

2:39 PM  
Blogger damien said...

Flight 93 was a 757-200 with a wing span of 124 feet. Yet an image of the crash site shows an impact zone only 60 - 75 feet wide. That is, 50 feet too small for a 757. Don't believe me? Here's an image showing a car (15 feet long, at most) and the impact zone (5 car lengths = 75 feet). On the evidence available Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. (see also here and here). All the signs are of a smaller plane. The real problem is the absence from the wreckage site of any recognizable portions of wings, tails, 100+ seats, luggage or massive engines.

Keep this in mind: modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn bodies yet we are expected to believe that 4 tons of human remains disappeared ("vaporised") in an instant leaving some tiny shreds of tissue and a handful of small bones. The temperatures were simply not high enough to dispose of that volume of human remains in such a small time frame. People also need to understand that we still have a series of technically impossible cell phone calls from Flight 93, some of them from 30,000 feet (including the disturbing Mark Bingham phone call to his mother). There are TOO MANY unanswered questions about Flight 93. Even if the Air Force shot down a plane we still don't know if it was Flight 93. If that sounds unbelievable then let me just say it's a lot MORE believable than cell phone calls from 30,000 feet, a 75 feet impact hole for a plane that is 125 feet wide and a complete absence of wings, tail or fuselage. The public has been kept in the dark and are willing to accept one hypothetical account over another just because it contains a smidgen more believability. Don't the American public understand that they are entitled to KNOW what went on, to SEE all the evidence, to HEAR all the witnesses -- and not have to settle for guessing. Get Bush and his criminal regime out of office and hold a real 911 Inquiry.

8:03 PM  
Blogger T.Strand said...

With out giving too much info away, I have a relative who is an editor at a world famous news paper. On 9/11 they called to check on myself and my family saying that another plane had been shot down in Texas en route to California. It was never reported. Another member of my family, who works in aerospace for a company that does top secret defense contracts confirmed it. Sorry to be so vague, but I have to protect the identity of those involved.

1:27 PM  
Blogger TripMaster Monkey said...

Actually, I had thought this was obvious from day one, merely from the distribution of the wreckage.

The debris field was spread over an area of over five miles, with some pieces found as far away as eight miles. One of the engines, easily the heaviest part of the aircraft, was found over a mile away.

This debris pattern is not consistent with an intact aircraft nose-diving into the earth. It is, however, entirely consistent with an aircraft being destroyed at altitude, with the fragments subsequently raining down.

Still, it's nice to see some independent corroboration to further silence the naysayers.

6:10 AM  
Blogger Douglas Eagleson said...

I was working at the Cellular One/Dobson Cellular Call Center that covers Camp David with its towers. Many SS and FBI agents use special nondisclosable Cell phones from this system.

You could listen in on any cell on the tower. And people/call center staff did listen in live time on the day of flight 93. A shootdown order did go out through the Secret Service cell phone system.

After this happened special agents came to stop cell center phone system "misuse". Before there was no montoring system to ensure nonoffical listening in.

A flight order to shootdown was supposed to be a full BUSH and Cheny secret. They got mad after they found out the cell system was opened.

12:48 PM  
Blogger fletcher1320 said...

Nobody has mentioned the most critical fact about Flight 93: its take-off was delayed for 41 minutes.

If it had reached its target after that elapse of time, it would not have been plausible to claim that it could not have been intercepted.

I have no idea how it was downed, but that it would be downed was clearly inevitable.

11:57 AM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

God knows I love my country.
And I myself am a very conservative person.
I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe flight 93 was shot down by a fighter jet.
It made me sick when I heard it. To think that those people were killed by their own country makes me want to cry. If 9/11 was an inside job, then we wouldn't have shot down that plane. I believ shooting down 93 was a heat of the moment decision, and it was a mistake. I wish I could go on being ignorant...the truth hurts really bad.

God help our country.


11:22 AM  
Blogger Rabbit said...


If 9/11 was an inside job, then we wouldn't have shot down that plane. I believe shooting down 93 was a heat of the moment decision, and it was a mistake.

I understand.

However hard as it is to believe, it was an inside job though. It is very definately able to be proven at this point and I don't say this lightly.

Flight 93 was delayed. It was too late to make it to its target in time, which I believe might have been WTC7. WTC7 was wired with explosives beforehand and they could never have predicted the fires or damage even which resulted from some debris from the Twin Towers, so for it to have been wired, something must have been planned for it. It is MY theory only but it is logical. Also the twin towers were hit in the wrong order by planes or the explosives got set off in the wrong tower first. The Twin Towers should not have fallen in the order they did. the much more severely damaged tower had the longest fires too and was hit first, yet the less damaged tower fell first. To those of us who think most about it, this is itself a very strange thing, quite apart from the fact that the WTC had already had greater damage from explosives before and much worse and bigger fires too, without there ever even being even the most minute weakening of the structure.

The Flight 93 plane was delayed as said and by so much it would have been big problem so they took it down. You are however wrong to say this itself was wrong, if indeed it had been hijacked. It is perfectly logical that a hijacked pane should be shot down rather than allow it to be used as a missile to do more damage.

The problem however is that that plane, in fact all the planes on the day, had a special system s=installed which allowed the ground controllers to TAKE OVER CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT, even over-riding the pilots. The system was fitted in all 767s and the implications are obvious.

Not only could they have taken control of the planes away from the hijackers.......somebody could have taken control away from the pilots!!!

This may explain why there is no real evidence of the Hijackers on the day, none of their names were on the original passenger lists and half of them have turned up alive since. It also explains how the plane maneuvers which experienced pilots say they could not have done, were performed. the alleged hijackers couldn't even fly small planes let alone a 767 as if it was a fighter jet.

Pilots for 9/11 truth explain how even an experienced pilot could not have pulled the dive into the Pentagon.

12:31 AM  
Blogger jim said...

I am in FL. On the evening of 9/11 I was told by a relative with a friend in the ND Air Guard that the Guard shot Flight 93 down. The next day, a client whose daughter had a friend who was an Indiana flight controller told me that the flight controller said the plane was shot down. 2 disparate sources of information that connected what happened for me. I think it will shock the American people someday to learn that the government was complicit in 9/11.

9:34 PM  
Blogger shamrocknroll said...

I think that if this is the truth, it definitely needs to come out, and I applaud the persons who make that happen. But to side with the government for a moment here (trust me, not something I like doing) wouldn't it make sense to shoot down the plane if they knew it was hijacked and heading for Washington? "Inside job theorists" aside, assuming 9/11 was a legitimate foreign attack, then this is exactly what I would expect the government to do. Tough decision, no doubt... but if they expected the plane to be heading towards the White House, Capitol, or another skyscraper where many more people would have been killed, and a more significant psychological and economical blow against the country would have taken place, then shooting down this plane would have been the right thing to do.

I know that sucks... but it's the truth.

1:50 PM  
Blogger PT said...

t.strand: that might have been flight 77. Reports of a plane going down in the mountains near the KY state line appeared several places during the morning of 9/11, but were all gone by the afternoon and never mentioned again.

To the people arguing about what kind of fighter it was: IF it was an inside job, do you think they would have trusted the regular standby crews to do it? Wasn't there a related "exercise" going on that same morning that would most certainly have involved other crews that had been specially briefed?

1:05 AM  
Blogger okcomputer said...

I feel strongly that this happened, do i have any less appreciation for the government? No, not at all.

If it didn't go down on its own, it had to be shot, because who knows what it would have crashed into.

There are things that normal citizens shouldn't know the answer to, chaos can ensue etc.....Don't hate the government because they won't confirm flight 93 being shot down or not, thats complete horseshit if you do hate them for that.

I support all Military Personnel both home and abroad.

11:28 AM  
Blogger Jeffery said...

It was portrayed in the movie and another it wasn't... that there were two fighter jets tailing flight 93. Now tell me, why wouldn't there be? One of the documentary's stated that the military didn't learn of the crash until 20 minutes after. That's "Utter Tush!" These zillions of dollars we pay for national security and they didn't know. Try to sell that to some other idiot. I do believe that they had to shoot it down, but in so doing you don't want to tell those families that. So we make up a story that makes them out to be hero's to sugar coat the situation. In their own way all of the victims of 911 are hero's in my book

12:14 PM  
Blogger Vronsky said...

It would be perfectly reasonable for the air force to have shot down flight 93. The inescapable logic of the situation was that it was known that it would be used as a missile to kill many more people than just its passengers and crew, and therefore the unpleasant but entirely necessary course of action was to destroy it.

One cannot criticise the air force for their failure to defend the nation, and simultaneously criticise them for what appears to be their single effective act of defence.

This raises the interesting question: why do the authorities deny downing flight 93, when they should use it to point out that the aerial defence eventually did respond as required? They should have claimed that they shot it down - perhaps the rumours in the posts above are a late attempt to remedy that oversight.

However I don't think flight 93 was shot down. The evidence of pre-planted explosives in the twin towers and WTC7 is irresistible. If these buildings were mined for demolition before 9/11, then no chances could be taken that the planes would miss their targets. Hoping that some inexperienced Saudi flight students could pull it off was too risky - to guarantee impact on target the planes had to be steered by remote control and by experts.

Flight 93 was late on take-off, so the ruse could not be sustained. It was driven into the ground under remote control when it became clear that it could not plausibly be allowed to reach its target - WTC7.

2:29 PM  
Blogger Rabbit said...


"Flight 93 was late on take-off, so the ruse could not be sustained. It was driven into the ground under remote control when it became clear that it could not plausibly be allowed to reach its target - WTC7."

I agree that being late on takeoff was the reason the plane could not reach target on time, and I am even of the opinion the target was initially meant to be WTC-7, because I can't believe they rigged that building with no plan of a cover story and they could never have predicted the damage from the debris from the other towers, given other buildings were closer and they would be expected to be damaged more, which they were.

So yes they had need to "get rid of the extra plane". However I do believe it was shot down for several reasons. Rumours of a shoot down began ciculating very shortly afterwards for one thing and the details of these correspond with what we later got more confirmation of, as above. The bext evidence for a shoot down, is the wide dispersal of airplane debris, including some very large and heavy engine parts several miles distant. The other lighter debris was also UPWIND of the crash site. This clearly indicates the plane was breaking up in mid air. A full ground strike would have left an easily recognisable debris field, as it is there is no sign of an airplane at the Pensylvania site. This sort of plane crash has been seen befrore, and this is not remotely similar to the usual crash site.

I have a feeling the true story of Flight 93 may be one of the more interesting sidelines when the truth is finally known. The truth will be known, for nothing remains hidden forever. It is true that some people can hide from the truth forever though of course.

This is a very long running thread which still pops up once in a while even a year later.

4:18 PM  
Blogger Sham said...

I believe you.

11:22 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

I don't believe any of this hogwash that you all are spewing for a few reasons.
#1- If the USAF shot down that plane, how did debris, bodies, etc, end up INSIDE the hole in the ground?? If it supposedly broke up over an eight mile treck, how did they calculate where it was going to land, and happen to land it in a hole? Did they make the hole afterward?? Nope, not enough time. Go find pictures of the debris from Fl. 93, and the ValueJet 592 crash in the everglades. Notice the simmilarities?? I do. But we know that ValueJet was not shot down, but had a tremendous fire in the cargo hold. Look at this link.
(this explains VJ FL 592)
Here are pictures.

Notice the spread of debris?? Notice the size of the hole??
Notice the size of the wreckage??

Now, still say it was shot down?? Of course you do. Logical thinking elludes you.

#2- If any of the people on here are as they claim (USAF people relaying secret information) Each and every one of them would be arrested and charged with treason. If you have a secret clearance, and you talk about the things that are supposed to be secret (Ie: Flight operations, etc) than every one of you would be sitting in Ft. Levenworth prison right now. but you not are you?? Yeah, no, your at home right now, being morons. Notice not ONE PERSON heard this (BS) story first hand?? Its " a friend of a friend" and "My buddies parents". Its all BS. If the USAF shot down that plane, why wouldn't the USAF come right out and say it?? They had the permission, why not?? Because some people might get mad?? They got mad either way!!
#3 - To all of you who think that the ATC's could fly the plane from the ground, thats hogwash. Even in 2002, they didn't have it.

So, go put your tin foild hats back on. Someone might try to hack into your brain from outerspace.

8:50 AM  
Blogger willyloman said...

Len just misled you all...

"Several witnesses saw flight 93 none of them described seeing any damage to it."

6 of the eyewitnesses on the scene reported HEARING loud a explosion in the air and looking up to see the plane, Flight 93, struggling and attempting to maintain airspeed. They watched it crash.

An explosion in the air that was loud enough for them to turn and look at the struggling plane.

According to an air traffic controller, she diverted 2 fighters to Flight 93 and they had been tailing it for some time before the crash.

6:56 PM  
Blogger naseem said...

I'm wondering if obama knows anything about this .

3:28 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

F-16s were and are at Langley AFB, they're at the west end of the airstrip near the NASA facility. They are effectively the base's air defense system. I was at Langley on 9/11 and I saw some message traffic (something like twitter, one line time stamped info) that said the F-16s were scrambled (took off) and later one that they "intercepted" flight 93.

The conspiracy theorists have run amuck. The plane was hijacked, was likely taken over by the passengers, and was shot down due to a lack of communication of said fact.

8:45 PM  
Blogger sue said...

There was no wreckage at the crash site,but there was debris scattered for 2 miles before the crash site. The hole in the ground was seen on google earth years before, the before and after pictures almost look the same except for they blew up some dynamite,and Rumsfeld said in an interveiw when asked about the plane his comment was which one the one we shot down? then he tried to cover by saying I mean the one that crashed in the field. we know what happened and If I have my way there will be alot of hangings when we're done with them.

7:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home