Bonkers brilliance

[Digby]

That's a bit harsh on propaganda

[Mellsblue]

Don’t forget, everything is propaganda.

[rowan]

Wow, talk about a man just digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole

Rowan, debris wasn’t spread out over 8 miles.

There was no military jet shadowing the airliner in a firing position.

The claims that a named US Air Guard pilot had shot down the airliner were soundly refuted by the pilot o question who could prove he was nowhere near the crash site.

If this was a hoax, how has it been kept quiet and why bother given the context of the day?

The aircraft was hijacked about 35 minutes before it crashed. The top decision makers weee informed that it was hijacked less than 5 minutes before it crashed. There wasn’t time to shoot it down given the need to relay and order and get a jet in position. There were no military jets in the immediate area.

Standard protocol when dealing with hijacked aircraft was to escort them into an airfield. Look at numerous hijackong incidents from the previous 30 years and the same pattern is repeated.

If you are 98% sure based on no evidence at all in favour of your opinion and despite evidence to the contrary then his discussion is pointless. You lack any ability to discern information and are just spouting propaganda.

But these accounts below were published even by mainstream media. In fact, especially mainstream - because there wasn't much access to alternative media in those days. Not to mention Cheney's is straight from the horse's mouth. He claims to have given the order to shoot down the airline, although almost directly after the event he had claimed that it was Bush who had given the order (and was deeply upset when he, GW, heard it had gone down because he thought it had done so on his orders). So that completely destroys your view that no such orders could have possibly been given, and then we have a further hint (and a pretty big one) Bush/Cheney's orders were indeed followed when Rumsfield referred to the plane as having been 'shot down.' But you see no reason to doubt the standard narrative


PRESIDENT Bush authorised American jets to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner as it approached Washington on Tuesday, the Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -down.html

Cheney admits he gave the orders to shoot down Flight 93.

Donald Rumsfield says Pennsylvania flight shot down.

That's clear as day and you know it. But it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong...

As for the debris and eye-witness accounts, a book has been published about them, numerous reports have made reference to them (including in the mainstream media), and plenty of video clips are available as well. So, no, we can never be 100% sure about everything, but to suggest there is no cause for serious doubt about the standard narrative here would be the height of narrow-minded arrogance. It would also be extremely naive to simply swallow the standard narrative whole, when it came from exactly the same people as those who lied to us about WMDs in Iraq, then gleefully destroyed the nation and the lives of millions of people (just to start with).

[morepork]

"....because there wasn't much access to alternative media in those days".


Bullshit there wasn't. You clearly weren't following the 2000 general election.

[Sandydragon]

Wow, talk about a man just digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole

Rowan, debris wasn’t spread out over 8 miles.

There was no military jet shadowing the airliner in a firing position.

The claims that a named US Air Guard pilot had shot down the airliner were soundly refuted by the pilot o question who could prove he was nowhere near the crash site.

If this was a hoax, how has it been kept quiet and why bother given the context of the day?

The aircraft was hijacked about 35 minutes before it crashed. The top decision makers weee informed that it was hijacked less than 5 minutes before it crashed. There wasn’t time to shoot it down given the need to relay and order and get a jet in position. There were no military jets in the immediate area.

Standard protocol when dealing with hijacked aircraft was to escort them into an airfield. Look at numerous hijackong incidents from the previous 30 years and the same pattern is repeated.

If you are 98% sure based on no evidence at all in favour of your opinion and despite evidence to the contrary then his discussion is pointless. You lack any ability to discern information and are just spouting propaganda.

But these accounts below were published even by mainstream media. In fact, especially mainstream - because there wasn't much access to alternative media in those days. Not to mention Cheney's is straight from the horse's mouth. He claims to have given the order to shoot down the airline, although almost directly after the event he had claimed that it was Bush who had given the order (and was deeply upset when he, GW, heard it had gone down because he thought it had done so on his orders). So that completely destroys your view that no such orders could have possibly been given, and then we have a further hint (and a pretty big one) Bush/Cheney's orders were indeed followed when Rumsfield referred to the plane as having been 'shot down.' But you see no reason to doubt the standard narrative


PRESIDENT Bush authorised American jets to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner as it approached Washington on Tuesday, the Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -down.html

Cheney admits he gave the orders to shoot down Flight 93.

Donald Rumsfield says Pennsylvania flight shot down.

That's clear as day and you know it. But it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong...

As for the debris and eye-witness accounts, a book has been published about them, numerous reports have made reference to them (including in the mainstream media), and plenty of video clips are available as well. So, no, we can never be 100% sure about everything, but to suggest there is no cause for serious doubt about the standard narrative here would be the height of narrow-minded arrogance. It would also be extremely naive to simply swallow the standard narrative whole, when it came from exactly the same people as those who lied to us about WMDs in Iraq, then gleefully destroyed the nation and the lives of millions of people (just to start with).

For the love of sanity look at the fucking timeline.

United Flight 93

After a delay of more than 40 minutes, United Airlines Flight 93 took off at 8:42 a.m. from Newark, New Jersey. The last contact with its pilots came at 9:28 a.m.

About one minute later, a radio transmission came from Flight 93. Controllers at the FAA's Cleveland Center in Ohio heard what they thought was screaming. A moment later, they could tell what was being said in a second transmission.

Flight 93: Get out of here, get out of here.

Officials were unsure what plane was in trouble. A Cleveland Center controller noticed a change in Flight 93's altitude and tried to contact the cockpit. He received no response. At 9:32 a.m., someone on the plane spoke to the passengers.

Flight 93: Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board.

Controller: Calling Cleveland Center, you're unreadable. Say again, slowly.

The controller repeatedly tried to contact Flight 93 but received no response. Instead at 9:39 a.m., one of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, spoke to the passengers.

Jarrah: Uh, is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands [unintelligible]. Please remain quiet.

Controller: United 93, understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead.

There was no response.

At 9:36, Cleveland Center had asked national Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Virginia about possible military intervention. The Command Center said that would be an FAA decision. Thirteen minutes later, the FAA spoke with the Command Center.

FAA headquarters: They're pulling Jeff away to go talk about United 93.

Command Center: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?

FAA headquarters: Uh, God, I don't know.

Command Center: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

FAA headquarters: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.

At 9:53 a.m., the FAA told the Command Center that discussions about scrambling planes were ongoing. At 10:01 a.m., a commercial plane tracking Flight 93 saw the United aircraft wavering its wings. Flight 93 crashed two minutes later.

The same C-130H that had seen American Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon -- now back on its original flight path to Minnesota -- called in reports of smoke from a field in Pennsylvania.

At 10:08 a.m., the Command Center notified the FAA.

Command Center: OK. Uh, there is now on that United 93.

FAA headquarters: Yes.

Command Center: There is a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you, 15 miles south of Johnstown.

FAA headquarters: From the airplane or from the ground?

Command Center: Uh, they're speculating it's from the aircraft.

FAA headquarters: OK.

Command Center: Uh, who, it hit the ground. That's what they're speculating, that's speculation only.

At 10:17 a.m., the Command Center confirmed to the FAA that Flight 93 had crashed.

A military liaison from the FAA's Cleveland Center had called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector at 10:07 a.m. to inform officials about Flight 93. The Northeast Air Defense Sector searched for the aircraft on radar, unaware that the plane had crashed. A few minutes later it called the FAA's Washington Center.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: I also want to give you a heads-up, Washington.

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: United 93, have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: When did he land? 'Cause we have got confirmation. ...

FAA: He did not land.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

Northeast Air Defense Sector: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

Source: 9/11 panel's Staff Statement 17

There wasn’t time between the top decision makers being notified to get a military aircraft in position and shoot down the aircraft! Bush or someone might have given an order, it by that time the aircraft was already down.

You’re just so desperate for this to be the case that you are bending the rules of time and space. Come on, open your fucking eyes and do some maths. There wasn’t time for an executive order to shoot down flight 93 to be given to a military aircraft, and for that aircraft to execute that order before it crashed.

And the crash site want that big. Provide some evidence to the contrary by all means, but the odd bit of paper drifting isn’t going to cut it. An explosion in mid air might see heavy items spread over a wide area. If you want to see the difference, have a look at the pictures of the aircraft that the Russians shot down over the Ukraine for how that works. And for the record, no evidence of a missile strike was found on the debris of flight 93.

Wishing something to be true is nice for your own personal fantasies, but get some fucking evidence before claiming the rest of us are deluded.

[Coco]

muteyou_picsauce.gif

[rowan]

Your obvious desperation to argue your way out of this huge blunder you have made is self-defeating, tbh. I mean, all you've done there is say the same things and throw in a record of events in accordance with the official narrative.

You originally claimed there was no way anybody would have made the order to shoot down Flight 93, but now you're backtracking on that by saying Bush or Cheney might have made if after it went down. In fact, it's certain that one of them did give the order, because they both freely admitted to doing so.

PRESIDENT Bush authorised American jets to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner as it approached Washington on Tuesday, the Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -down.html

Cheney admits he gave the orders to shoot down Flight 93.

& you say you want evidence, but I am the one providing the evidence and have been from the outset. Whereas you haven't, aside from cutting and pasting an official version of the timeline of events.

Well, here's one of many articles in the mainstream press which question the official version of events: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 73206.html

There's also a book about it: Flight 93. The authors' findings were that the debris were spread over 8 miles, eye-witnesses had seen the military jet missile the passenger airline, a discrepancy existed between seismology records and black box recordings on the impact time, and that given the technology of the day it is highly improbable 35 calls were made from 6 miles altitude (barely a handful were made from the other hijacked planes collectively). The only call that billing records backed up was in fact from a panic-stricken passenger hiding in the toilet moments before the plane went down. Sounds a lot more realistic than the "Let's roll" heroics that the official narrative claimed, followed up with a cheesy TV movie, and appropriated as propaganda for the illegal and genocidal war on Iraq, wouldn't you say?

& here's Donny, forgetting his lies!

Donald Rumsfield says Pennsylvania flight shot down.

[rowan]

& here's another report: http://web.archive.org/web/200209172039 ... teid=50143

UA93: THE EVIDENCE

THE WITNESSES

At least SIX witnesses, including Susan Mcelwain saw a small military type plane flying around shortly BEFORE UA93 crashed. The FBI denies its existence

THE DEBRIS

The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away

THE MOBILE CALL

Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The superviser who took the call has been gagged by the FBI

THE F-16s

UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9.16am. At 9.35am three F-16s were ordered to "protect the White House at all costs" when it turned towards the capital. At 10.06am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10mins flying time from Washington

THE BLACK BOXS

Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed

THE SONIC BOOM

The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area but at 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.

[morepork]

The Daily Mirror...

[Digby]

The Daily Mirror...

Not quite as worthless as The Daily Star

[Sandydragon]

More information here on the chain of command regarding this shoot down order.

UNITED FLIGHT 93 AND THE LIMITS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER
The 10th year anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks reminded Americans once more of the heroism of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93. Those passengers, it will be recalled, overpowered their hijackers and almost certainly prevented the flight from reaching its intended target: the Capitol building. One of the more remarkable revelations that came out of the recent media coverage of the 9-11 anniversary is that the two National Guard pilots initially scrambled from Andrews Air Force base with orders to intercept the doomed Flight 93 took to the air essentially unarmed. Lacking the firepower necessary to take down the civilian aircraft, the pilots were prepared to ram the plane in what some journalists labeled a “kamikaze” mission.

Although this revelation received widespread media coverage, the more important story regarding those military flights, and of the shoot-down orders more generally, as revealed in the definitive report issued by 9-11 Commission (formally the National Commission on Terrorist Strikes Upon the United States) has not received nearly the coverage it deserves. And it is another reminder of just how limited the power of the presidency is – even at the height of a national emergency.

When the 9-11 attacks occurred, standard orders required the permission of the President and Secretary of Defense to shoot down civilian aircraft. The directive was based on the not unrealistic assumption that in the typical hijacking there would be some time to assess the situation. That is, there would be no effort by the hijackers to try to hide the plane, never mind convert it into a suicide weapon. At the worst, it was presumed that a hijacked plane might be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction. As we know, those assumptions proved disastrously incorrect. In fact, the hijackers on all four plans turned off the transponders by which the FAA identified aircraft on radar screens. The result is that even when the civilian authorities notified the military that suspected hijackings were underway they could not tell them where the planes were. Following standard operating procedures, the fighter planes flew to designations off the coast while waiting for information regarding the location of the hijacked planes.

In the confusion that followed, efforts to work through the chain of command were hampered by poor communications between key decisionmakers and a basic lack of information, not least regarding how many planes were hijacked and where they were located. In recreating the sequence of events from that fateful day, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney recalled an initial conversation, which the 9-11 commission estimated took place at about 10 a.m., or roughly one hour and 15 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center, during which Bush authorized Cheney to give orders for the military to shoot down any civilian airliner that did not respond to commands. However, the documentation for this initial conversation is sketchy, leading some to argue that Cheney went ahead and issued shoot down orders shortly after 10 on his own, and then retroactively sought the President’s authorization. It is clear from the records the Bush gave (re)authorization for a civilian shootdown in a second (or perhaps initial) conversation with Cheney at about 10:23. By this time the fourth and final hijacked plane, Flight 93, had already crashed, although no one in the military chain of command knew this.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, have long speculated that the military actually did shoot Flight 93 down, which made the recent revelations that the initial interceptors were unarmed all the more significant. But the real story is actually far more interesting because, for all the debate regarding who really authorized the shootdown of civilian flights, the reality is that the military never relayed that order to the first interceptors that went up. The military received word of the hijacking at 8:37, and the first interceptors were ordered scrambled out of Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts at 8:46, just as American 11 struck the North Tower. As it turned out, the 9 minutes of warning was the most the military would have with any of the hijacked flights; military air defense had no advance warning on the three others flights before they crashed.

The President and Vice President had no way of knowing this of course. At 10:31, through means still not entirely clear, the shootdown order from the President was disseminated through the North American (NORAD) air defense military chain of command when, according to the Commission report, “General Larry Arnold instructed his staff to broadcast the following over a NORAD instant messaging system: ‘10:31 Vice president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].’”

This simple, direct order from the commander in chief at a time of a military emergency caused – again quoting the 9-11 commission – “considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order.” And it was not passed along. That’s right. The President’s direct order, relayed through the Vice President authorizing the shooting down of civilian airliner was never passed on to the pilots in the air. Here’s the key passage from the 9-11 Report:

“The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

But what about the second group of interceptors launched from Andrews air force base – the ones on a “kamikaze” mission? Surely they had shoot-down orders? No, they did not. In fact, they were not even scrambled under NORAD order. As the 9-11 Commission explains: “The Vice President was mistaken in his belief that shootdown authorization had been passed to the pilots flying at NORAD’s direction. By 10:45 there was, however, another set of fighters circling Washington that had entirely different rules of engagement.” Those fights had been launched at 10:38 from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland in response to information passed to them by the Secret Service – not NORAD command. But rather than take the air with orders to shoot, they instead operated under “weapons free-a permissive rule of engagement.” The local commander, General David Wherley was told to “send up the aircraft, with orders to protect the White House and take out any aircraft that threatened the Capitol. General Wherley translated this in military terms to flying “weapons free”-that is, the decision to shoot rests in the cockpit, or in this case in the cockpit of the lead pilot. He passed these instructions to the pilots that launched at 10:42 and afterward.”

In effect, then, the decision whether to shoot down the civilian airliner was the pilots to make – the President’s clear directive notwithstanding. Of course, neither Bush nor Cheney even knew that fighters had been scrambled out of Andrews – that order came from the Secret Service and therefore fell outside the military chain of command.

It is tempting to think that, in a crisis situation that involves national security, ultimate authority lies solely with the President. Surely the President feels the weight of responsibility in these situations more keenly than anyone else. In a sense, when national survival is at stake, he comes closest among all elected officials to embodying national sovereignty. The mistake – one that even presidential scholars are susceptible to – is in thinking this heightened sense of urgency increases his actual power to control events. Alas, the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional obligations still depends on the actions and judgments of score of individuals, both civilian and military who, although ostensibly in the direct line of command leading to the President, nonetheless must make, often under conditions of intense pressure and with limited information, their own judgments regarding how to respond to the President’s orders. That is, they view his orders from their own vantage points, and act accordingly. It is why even in the most urgent matters of national security, presidents rarely can be said to exercise command authority. And in more mundane matters, the idea that presidents act “unilaterally” is more myth than reality.

And what of United Flight 93? Given the confusing response to the President’s shootdown orders, it seems the debt we owe to the heroism of the passengers and crew on that flight on September 11, 2001, is even greater than many of us had perhaps realized. Had they not acted, there’s no certainty anyone else would have been in a position to bring down that plane.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post stated an incorrect time for the first strike on the World Trade Center. In fact, the north tower was struck by American Flight 11 at 8:46 a.m. I have corrected the timeline in the post above.

[Sandydragon]

The link to the article below

https://sites.middlebury.edu/presidenti ... ial-power/

This actually confirms that any instructions provided by Bush were after flight 93 crashed.

Once again a conspiracy theory only makes sense if you ignore all of the facts.

[Sandydragon]

& here's another report: http://web.archive.org/web/200209172039 ... teid=50143

UA93: THE EVIDENCE

THE WITNESSES

At least SIX witnesses, including Susan Mcelwain saw a small military type plane flying around shortly BEFORE UA93 crashed. The FBI denies its existence

THE DEBRIS

The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away

THE MOBILE CALL

Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The superviser who took the call has been gagged by the FBI

THE F-16s

UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9.16am. At 9.35am three F-16s were ordered to "protect the White House at all costs" when it turned towards the capital. At 10.06am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10mins flying time from Washington

THE BLACK BOXS

Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed

THE SONIC BOOM

The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area but at 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.

How could flight 93 have been identified as a hojacked aircraft 15 minutes before the hijackers entered the cockpit?

The inidentified aircraft was identified as a civilian aircraft.

Consider the impact of an aircraft hitting the ground at speed. A mile isn’t that far. An explosion in midair at altitude would have left debris scattered over a much wider area.

You are clutching at straws here.

[Sandydragon]

Your obvious desperation to argue your way out of this huge blunder you have made is self-defeating, tbh. I mean, all you've done there is say the same things and throw in a record of events in accordance with the official narrative.

You originally claimed there was no way anybody would have made the order to shoot down Flight 93, but now you're backtracking on that by saying Bush or Cheney might have made if after it went down. In fact, it's certain that one of them did give the order, because they both freely admitted to doing so.

PRESIDENT Bush authorised American jets to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner as it approached Washington on Tuesday, the Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -down.html

Cheney admits he gave the orders to shoot down Flight 93.

& you say you want evidence, but I am the one providing the evidence and have been from the outset. Whereas you haven't, aside from cutting and pasting an official version of the timeline of events.

Well, here's one of many articles in the mainstream press which question the official version of events: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 73206.html

There's also a book about it: Flight 93. The authors' findings were that the debris were spread over 8 miles, eye-witnesses had seen the military jet missile the passenger airline, a discrepancy existed between seismology records and black box recordings on the impact time, and that given the technology of the day it is highly improbable 35 calls were made from 6 miles altitude (barely a handful were made from the other hijacked planes collectively). The only call that billing records backed up was in fact from a panic-stricken passenger hiding in the toilet moments before the plane went down. Sounds a lot more realistic than the "Let's roll" heroics that the official narrative claimed, followed up with a cheesy TV movie, and appropriated as propaganda for the illegal and genocidal war on Iraq, wouldn't you say?

& here's Donny, forgetting his lies!

Donald Rumsfield says Pennsylvania flight shot down.

You have no evidence to support the claim that 93 was shot down on the orders of the American president, or a deputy. Therefore your claim that the events of that day relating to flight 93 are a myth is just nonsense.

As for books supporting your view, give me a break. There are probably hundreds of 9/11 books out there written supporting conspiracy theories. Ignoring key evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative is a component of all.

[Sandydragon]

Oh yes, I almost forgot that an eye witness saw th plane in its last moments, intact and not billowing smoke or giving any other indication of being hit by air to air missile or gunfire.

[Mellsblue]

Why are you bothering?

[rowan]

We could debate what happened to Flight 93 until the cows come home. A mountain of so-called evidence has been produced by both sides. The official narrative is the hijacked plane was wrestled down by heroic passengers, as per the TV movie. The alternative narrative suggests the hijacked plane was shot down after 3 other hijacked airlines had already struck the Twin Towers and Pentagon buildings. Both sides have witnesses, photos, data, etc. Of course, the alternative narrative has been dismissed by those who prefer the official narrative, and its sources and publication will be snickered upon even though they include mainstream publications (including a few of Britain's highest circulation dailies referenced here). But the official narrative comes from basically the same people who lied to us about WMDs and carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq, resulting in approx. 2 million deaths. Cutting and pasting report after report from either side isn't going to win any arguments.

But what is clear is that there is room for argument. You claimed there wasn't, dismissing the alternative narrative as conspiracy theory, then claimed it was highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. & there is where you very clearly slipped up, because you had obviously forgotten that Bush and Cheney both freely admitted to having given the order to shoot down Flight 93 soon after the event. This was headline news around the world, and Cheney can be seen on video clips saying exactly that. Thus your assertion highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down is itself shot down in flames. Not only could the order have been given, it was given - by the highest authority. You later backtracked yourself and conceded the order could have been given after the plane had crashed. So time to just admit it: your original assertion was wrong.

[Sandydragon]

We could debate what happened to Flight 93 until the cows come home. A mountain of so-called evidence has been produced by both sides. The official narrative is the hijacked plane was wrestled down by heroic passengers, as per the TV movie. The alternative narrative suggests the hijacked plane was shot down after 3 other hijacked airlines had already struck the Twin Towers and Pentagon buildings. Both sides have witnesses, photos, data, etc. Of course, the alternative narrative has been dismissed by those who prefer the official narrative, and its sources and publication will be snickered upon even though they include mainstream publications (including a few of Britain's highest circulation dailies referenced here). But the official narrative comes from basically the same people who lied to us about WMDs and carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq, resulting in approx. 2 million deaths. Cutting and pasting report after report from either side isn't going to win any arguments.

But what is clear is that there is room for argument. You claimed there wasn't, dismissing the alternative narrative as conspiracy theory, then claimed it was highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. & there is where you very clearly slipped up, because you had obviously forgotten that Bush and Cheney both freely admitted to having given the order to shoot down Flight 93 soon after the event. This was headline news around the world, and Cheney can be seen on video clips saying exactly that. Thus your assertion highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down is itself shot down in flames. Not only could the order have been given, it was given - by the highest authority. You later backtracked yourself and conceded the order could have been given after the plane had crashed. So time to just admit it: your original assertion was wrong.

Actually we can’t debate this because your preposition is that any evidence that doesn’t support your view is basically a lie. Every point made in support of your story, has been rebutted. Repeatedly. The only thing we don’t know about that flight is whether the crash was caused by passengers fighting the hijackers or if the hijackers just crashed. We know with a higher degree of certainty that the aircraft was not shot down.

So much for your myth, it’s more of a fantasy.

[Sandydragon]

Why are you bothering?

I’m curious to determine the level of indoctrination in conspiracy theorists when presented with actual evidence.

Or I was just bored.

More of the latter if I’m honest. I won’t waste too much more time on this.

[rowan]

We could debate what happened to Flight 93 until the cows come home. A mountain of so-called evidence has been produced by both sides. The official narrative is the hijacked plane was wrestled down by heroic passengers, as per the TV movie. The alternative narrative suggests the hijacked plane was shot down after 3 other hijacked airlines had already struck the Twin Towers and Pentagon buildings. Both sides have witnesses, photos, data, etc. Of course, the alternative narrative has been dismissed by those who prefer the official narrative, and its sources and publication will be snickered upon even though they include mainstream publications (including a few of Britain's highest circulation dailies referenced here). But the official narrative comes from basically the same people who lied to us about WMDs and carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq, resulting in approx. 2 million deaths. Cutting and pasting report after report from either side isn't going to win any arguments.

But what is clear is that there is room for argument. You claimed there wasn't, dismissing the alternative narrative as conspiracy theory, then claimed it was highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. & there is where you very clearly slipped up, because you had obviously forgotten that Bush and Cheney both freely admitted to having given the order to shoot down Flight 93 soon after the event. This was headline news around the world, and Cheney can be seen on video clips saying exactly that. Thus your assertion highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down is itself shot down in flames. Not only could the order have been given, it was given - by the highest authority. You later backtracked yourself and conceded the order could have been given after the plane had crashed. So time to just admit it: your original assertion was wrong.

Actually we can’t debate this because your preposition is that any evidence that doesn’t support your view is basically a lie. Every point made in support of your story, has been rebutted. Repeatedly. The only thing we don’t know about that flight is whether the crash was caused by passengers fighting the hijackers or if the hijackers just crashed. We know with a higher degree of certainty that the aircraft was not shot down.

So much for your myth, it’s more of a fantasy.

If you read my comments correctly, you will find that you have just confirmed everything I wrote. Your flat-out denial that there may be reason to doubt the official narrative is blown apart by the vast amount of information that goes against it - much of which has been published in the mainstream media - and your failure to admit you got it wrong by claiming it was highly unlikely the order to shoot the plane down would have been given is destroyed totally by the fact both Bush and Cheney admitted to giving such an order. You have already backtracked on that, but rather than simply admit you got it wrong, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

[morepork]

aaaaaand.....goalpost duly shifted.