Shot down over an unpopulated region of Pennsylvania, apparently. Rumsfield let it slip in one of his speeches. Makes sense, since it was already known the Twin Towers had been hit by then, and Flight 93 was well off course. That's precisely what the military would be required to do.
You appear to be confusing current protocols with how to deal with a hijacked aircraft with what was in place in 2001. Protocols then were to get the aircraft on the ground, the idea of using the aircraft as a guided missile wasnt Seen as a high risk as terrorist groups didn’t use that as a MO.
Given the fragmentary response to 9/11 and th utter confusion amongst decision makers, it’s highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. The evidence from the day points to the passengers attempting to fight back. Anything else is a myth.
Not according to Donald Rumsfield.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Protocols then were to get the aircraft on the ground.
Are you serious? This wasn't a James Bond movie . . .
Given the fragmentary response to 9/11 and th utter confusion amongst decision makers
So they might have panicked and failed to follow the entirely useless protocols above, you mean . . .
The evidence from the day points to the passengers attempting to fight back
What evidence? The mainstream media reports? The inevitable, cheesy follow-up movie?
Anything else is a myth.
Very, very narrow-minded comment . . .
No, it was real ife. The standard protocol for dealing with a hijacked aircraft prior to 9/11 was to get it safely on the ground, tire out the terrorist and negotiate a solution or storm it. Shooting it down was not a SOP.
The decision makers didn't know at first that it was a terrorist attack, or the scope of it. As for evidence, you mean the formal inquiries into 9/11 afterwards that were reported in the media.
This is another of your conspiracy theories. Useful distraction given the very real accusations of Russia shooting down a passenger airliner over Ukraine, but still make-believe.
rowan wrote:
Shot down over an unpopulated region of Pennsylvania, apparently. Rumsfield let it slip in one of his speeches. Makes sense, since it was already known the Twin Towers had been hit by then, and Flight 93 was well off course. That's precisely what the military would be required to do.
You appear to be confusing current protocols with how to deal with a hijacked aircraft with what was in place in 2001. Protocols then were to get the aircraft on the ground, the idea of using the aircraft as a guided missile wasnt Seen as a high risk as terrorist groups didn’t use that as a MO.
Given the fragmentary response to 9/11 and th utter confusion amongst decision makers, it’s highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. The evidence from the day points to the passengers attempting to fight back. Anything else is a myth.
Not according to Donald Rumsfield.
Eh, you mean this comment:
And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
He clearly isn't referring to the US Air Force in that list. Even for you, thats a stretch.
You do realise that George Bush had already given orders to shoot down Flight 93 before it was allegedly wrestled down by amazingly heroic, self-sacrificing heroes, right? Dick Cheney made that public soon after the tragedy and it was widely reported in both mainstream and non-mainstream news, describing it as the 'most momentous decision ever made by a US president' (somewhat ludicrously). Indeed, Poor GW was so guilt-ridden when he heard it had crashed, because he thought this had been done on his orders
However, the story soon changed and Cheney can later be seen here claiming to have issued the order himself.
Re Rumsfield's slip:
"He clearly isn't referring to the US Air Force in that list. Even for you, thats a stretch."
No, but it was a striking deviation from the standard narrative and, while completely ignored by mainstream media, it was widely picked up on by non-mainstream media. To then suggest questioning the standard narrative is a stretch, let alone conspiracy theory, when both Bush & Cheney have claimed to have given orders to shoot the plane down, and Rumsfield has said it was shot down, is extremely narrow-minded.
Of course there is reason to doubt the standard narrative; there always is, and especially so when you get all kinds of conflicting information coming right from the top. Many things which were once regarded as conspiracy theories have since turned out to be true. Some the US government has actually fessed up to several decades after the fact, almost gloatingly, such as their involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's first democratic government.
So it is far more likely the US government shot down Flight 93 than it is that either Moscow or Kiev ordered the shooting down of Flight MH17. That plane was inexplicably flying over a war zone and was mostly likely shot down by accident by those acting independently of their governments, whether unruly Ukrainian militants or ethnic Russian rebels.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
As far as evidence goes, research for the book Flight 93 Revealed found that debris from the wreckage had been spread over a wide area. The engines were not to be found at the main crash site, and neither were the wings or tail. The latter was found in a lake a couple of miles away, and only one of the engines was ever recovered - over a mile from the crash site (the FBI claimed it had bounced there). The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light. Amazingly the FBI did find a passport fully intact at the crash site crater - belonging to the so-called 20th hijacker.
The U.S. government has admitted that two military jets were flying above New York City and could have reached Pennsylvania in minutes. Several witnesses said they saw a fighter jet tailing Flight 93 and fire two missiles, after which the lplane dropped like a stone.'12 further witnesses reported seeing a military jet in the area. A Vietnam War veteran was among those who claimed he heard a loud bang, like a missile. There were also witness accounts of a military jet in the area after Flight 93 had gone down. The owner of the Indian Lake marine where debris were found a couple of miles from the crash site said he heard the jet engines overhead and looked up to see a fireball in the air.
Generally information from black box recorders is dealt with by the National Transportation Safety Board. But in the case of Flight 93, the FBI took over. A 3 minute discrepancy in the crash time has raised suspicions of foul play. Seismology stations pegged the impact time at 10:06 am. The impact time on the black box recorders was 10:03am.
Phone contact from the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that morning was almost non-existent. Yet 35 calls were reported to have been made by the passengers and crew of Flight 93. Given the technology of 2001 it is considered than any successful connections from six miles' altitude would have been a fluke. Neither did billing records back this up. Todd Beamer's 'Let's Roll'call was supposedly made via the phone gadgets on the airplane seats. The company which installed them also had a lucrative contract with the Pentagon. ‘Let’s roll!’ became George Bush's slogan for the war on Iraq.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Flight 93 was hijacked at 0928. The alert that another aircraft was hijaked was given the the presidents team at just after 1000. The flight crashed at 1003.
They eyewitness tale of a military key shadowing the passenger plane was a mistake, unless the aircraft had a flights run a firing position behind it then there is no way it was shot down.
I mean seriously Rowan, unless you are utterly blind to all the available evidence then the only rational reason for thinking that flight 93 was shot down is just a screwed up world view where the West is inherently evil and any stick is a means to beat them.
If nothing else, why would the US government deny shooting down the aircraft if it had done some. The other three passenger aircraft flying into buildings was perfect justification. Your version is illogical and unsupported by evidence.
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.
The plane, United Airlines Flight 93, eventually crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after a struggle between passengers and the terrorists. But the order to bring it down if necessary, is among the most momentous ever made by a president.
By publicising the decision, Mr Cheney served notice that any attempt to repeat Tuesday's terrorist tactics would be met with an immediate military response.
Officials believed the plane, which crashed with the loss of all those on board, was heading for Washington and either the White House or the Capitol. Two planes had already crashed into the World Trade Centre, while a third had devastated part of the Pentagon.
"The President made the decision," said Mr Cheney. "That if the plane would not divert, if they wouldn't pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort our pilots were authorised to take them out."
Cheney changes the story (interview published a decade later):
Rumfield provides yet another version:
This, plus research for the book Flight 93 Revealed, which found there were many eye witness accounts of the military jet and shooting down of Flight 93, that debris were spread over an area of eight miles, and that inconsistencies arose from the FBI's accounts of the black box records, provides more than sufficient grounds for an element of skepticism, I dare say.
So it would appear it is you who is purblind to all the available evidence, and withal completely in denial over the lack of morality men like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield would proceed to exhibit during the entirely illegal and genocidal invasion of Iraq - the biggest war crime of the 21st century thus far (and only really rivaled by American war crimes elsewhere).
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Sandy's argument, like Flight 93, has been shot down in flames - and he knows it.
He must have forgotten all this, about Bush and Cheney both freely admitting they gave orders to have the plane shot down, though it was widely reported in all sectors of the media at the time.
Pretty much every single thing you have posted on flight 93 Rowan, is utter bullshit. And has be de-bunked 100%. You are either a bare faced liar or the most gullible naive buffoon who ever googled.
Frankly, Mate, this sort of flippant comment is merely distracting us from the debate that is distracting us from the debate that is distracting us from the beguiling crap that is distracting us from forming a reasoned view of something that probably means we need to have a debate.
You're not trying to say 'yani.' are you? That could translate (from Turkish) as 'so what' in the right context and with the correct intonation and facial expression. A slow nod of the head would also help convey meaning. Otherwise it might easily be lost upon your audience.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Sandy's argument, like Flight 93, has been shot down in flames - and he knows it.
He must have forgotten all this, about Bush and Cheney both freely admitting they gave orders to have the plane shot down, though it was widely reported in all sectors of the media at the time.
Timeline, look at the timeline. The order could not have reached an USAF aircraft in time to carry out those orders, the other aircraft in the area wasn’t military. That is a fact.
Your argument is nonsensical yet you persevere with it. Are you so indoctrinated that you actually believe this guff or is this a propaganda effort? Either way, it’s still a bollocks argument.
Sandydragon wrote:
You appear to be confusing current protocols with how to deal with a hijacked aircraft with what was in place in 2001. Protocols then were to get the aircraft on the ground, the idea of using the aircraft as a guided missile wasnt Seen as a high risk as terrorist groups didn’t use that as a MO.
Given the fragmentary response to 9/11 and th utter confusion amongst decision makers, it’s highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. The evidence from the day points to the passengers attempting to fight back. Anything else is a myth.
Not according to Donald Rumsfield.
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.
Debris were spread out over 8 miles, one of the engines was found in a lake 2 miles away, eye-witnesses claimed to have seen a military jet tailing the passenger airline - some claim to have heard the explosion, seen two missiles being fired, seen a mid-air explosion, and seen the passenger airline drop. Seismology records record the impact at 10:06. The Black Box recordings gave an impact time of 10:03. Obviously the main trunk of the plane hit the ground 3 minutes after it was hit by the first missile.
The idea of forcing the plane to land safely is ridiculous for obvious reasons. This is precisely what the military would have done in the circumstances, and we all know America would inevitably create a more user-friendly account of the incident and turn it into a cheesy movie - because that's what America does. I don't really blame them, tbh. I blame them for carrying out an illegal war of genocidal proportions in Iraq and destroying several other Middle Eastern nations for entirely fictitious reasons, but I don't really blame them for shooting down a hijacked jet after it was already known two others had flown into the Twin Towers and one into the Pentagon.
Also, I wouldn't even go as far as to say I'm 100% sure, because you never can be about these things. I'd say about 98% sure, though. You're simply denying anybody would ever give such orders - when both Bush and Cheney have freely admitted to doing so; itself slightly problematic, and reported widely throughout the media - and attempt to shut off all doubt on the issue as myth. So just who has been indoctrinated here?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
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.
