Q. The 757-200 needs about 5000 feet of runway to take off though. If they were going to try to fly it out of Indian Lake wouldn't they have had to land it somewhere else close by?

A. The Johnstown airport is only about 15-20 miles away. The plane people saw coming in from the NW didn't have to be a 757 or the *actual* Flight 93 that took off from Newark. That plane could have very well landed in Cleveland. The 4000+ airstrip seems long enough for a large plane to take off or land there. I'm not sure that more than 4000 feet is *required* to take off.

Q. How could the C-130 go unnoticed while flying low and dropping debris?

A. The C-130 didn't have to be flying low to drop debris out of the rear of the plane. In fact, the debris field spreading as far SE as New Baltimore would indicate that the debris came from a high altitude.

Q. There were lots of witnesses that saw Flight 93 crash. What about them?

A. What witnesses? I believe only one witness said he saw Flight 93 actually crash, and only 1 or 2 others said they saw the plane turn upside down. If this was a government operation, having 1-3 "witnesses" to corroborate the official story not only would be easy to plant, but would almost be a necessity.

This certainly isn't any more difficult than what was proposed in the Operation Northwoods document.

And what about the witnesses at Indian Lake, EAST of the crater, who heard the plane fly overhead? How can you selectively pick which witnesses are accurate in their recollections? What about Sue Mcelwain? Do you have any reason to doubt her credibility?

Q. Everybody knows that Flight 93 was shot down, right?

A. There is no physical evidence or eye-witness evidence that FL 93 was shot down that I know of. Where did the wreckage go?

You also must realize that the "shot down" theory means that the entire transcript of the CVR must have been faked.

Q. Why bother landing Flight 93 at the Indian Lake landing strip instead of just flying somewhere else?

A. The reason to land at this landing strip is because it would have allowed a plane to be seen by witnesses coming in towards the crash site and disappearing over the hill, where it could have actually landed instead of crashed. The landing strip itself is secluded from site.

Q. This C-130 was the same C-130 that was at the Pentagon. How could that be?

A. Yes, the statistical probability that the same C-130 was at the exact location at the exact time of 2 of the 4 plane crashes on 9/11, which happened over 100 miles apart, is staggering. This is especially curious since there was a ground stoppage and an immediate landing order that this particular C-130 didn't seem to be affected by.

There is no way to verify any evidence that was dug up. Asking me, a private citizen with no access to the crash site to explain alleged evidence is silly. The same applies to the body parts.

However, if the government were going to stage a hijacking, one would presume that the planners of such an operation would think it through ahead of time and have a plan for planting body parts and debris as well. As I said, not only was the site sealed, but over 100 state troopers were positioned for 2 weeks to prevent anybody from even getting close to the site to watch what was going on. Anything could have been placed in the hole after the fact.

In short, there has never been an opportunity to challenge chain of evidence claimed by the government about the debris at the FL 93 crash site.

Q. What about the plane parts at the Flight 93 crash site?

A. There were very few recognizable plane parts. Certainly few enough and small enough to have had the opportunity to have been staged.

What was NOT visible were plane parts that could NOT have been staged. Things like a burnt out fuselage, crumpled wings, the tail section, etc.

Q. What about the body parts and the DNA matched by the coroner?

A. Matching DNA is only reliable as the chain of evidence, which has never been scrutinized or documented. To believe the government story one must have faith that the government is telling the truth all along the way. The government NEVER demonstrated or substantiated their claims -they simply made the claims.

As for the coroner, body parts were delivered by the FBI agents. At least that's my understanding. All that is required to make the claim that the DNA matched is a report from the lab where the DNA was sent. How can the chain of DNA evidence be verified? It could have been manipulated after the fact.

Q. It would have been impossible to land Flight 93, a 757, at the Indian Lake airport.

A. There is no necessity for the plane to actually BE a 757 per this theory. It could be similar, but smaller, commercial jet used by the military to give the appearance of a 757.

And of course this is obvious, but whatever piloting skills that would be necessary to land a 757 at Indian Lake pale in comparison to the skills it would have taken to manuever FL 77 into the Pentagon per the official story.

Q. It would have been impossible to land Flight 93 at Indian Lake because everybody would have noticed it.

A. Not true. The giant FL 93 was not noticed by everyone, whether it landed at the airport or crashed.

What's interesting is that some people at Indian Lake did notice a plane. The only problem is they shouldn't have noticed a plane flying overhead east of the crash site. The Flight 93 flight path didn't take it over Indian Lake.

This is the part that's not explained by the official story. Why did ANYBODY at Indian Lake notice a plane flying overhead?

Q. So your theory is they flew a decoy plane over Shanksville and landed on the nearby airstrip. Then a military plane fired a missile into the ground and another plane dropped debris at the crater site to make it look like a plane crash?

A. Actually this is not my theory. This is the Operation Northwoods plan modified for the facts surrounding the FL 93 crash site. Operation Northwoods described faking the hijacking of a commerical airliner, complete with staged debris and fake victims.

Q. These conspiracy theories give way too much credit for the U.S. government being competent enough to pull something like this off.

A. What you're implying is that al-Qaeda had more competence to pull off 9/11 than the U.S. military and intelligence operations. Sorry, but of all the reasons supporting the official story, this may be the least convincing.

For example, how could AQ have planned such a sophisticated operation that included flying a hijacked plane for 30 minutes towards Washington D.C. and know there would be no U.S. fighters there to defend the capitol?

Q. Wouldn't it make sense that the fighter jets shot down Flight 93?

A. The fighters were directed away from not one, but TWO incoming hijacked airliners because the FAA told NORAD that Flight 11 didn't hit WTC1 and was bearing down on D.C. from the northeast.

Q. Weren't there at least 3,000 people at Indian Lake who would have seen something fishy going on at the Indian Lake Airport?

A. This is really a misleading representation of the area. There's no way there's 3,000 people near the airstrip. The only thing within spitting distance is what looks to be an abandoned Christian center and some scattered homes. And at 10:00 am on a Tuesday morning, 9/11/01, most of the residential neighbors would have been working.

OH... and the most important part. There were people at Indian Lake who DID report they heard a plane fly overhead. That's the whole point of this theory -to postulate a theory that would fit with the evidence!

So what you're saying would have happened is actually what DID happen, except the people who heard the plane fly overhead at Indian Lake also saw the smoke rising up from the crater to the west.

Q. Since the government in this theory would have flown 2 commercial planes into the World Trade Centers, why wouldn't they just crash a real plane at Shanksville?

A. I don't know the answer to your questions, but I could speculate. Based on your reasoning, maybe what really happened is more in line with the "They Let It Happen" scenario. Maybe the government had the intelligence that the WTC attacks were going to take place and let them happen. Then to make the attacks sufficient grounds for a war instead of just a run of the mill terrorist attack, maybe the Pentagon attack was staged, or maybe the terrorists actually were allowed to fly 30 minutes unimpeded into the Pentagon.

As for Flight 93, the most feasible explanation maybe that the government needed the "hero story" of FL 93 as the launching point for the counter-attack against the terrorists. When you go to the FL 93 memorial, the ambassadors are quick to point out that the war on terror started with the passengers of FL 93.

Q. Wouldn't it be extremely risky for the government to try to pull off something like this in Shanksville?

A. Shanksville is in the middle of nowhere -very isolated. And people DID notice things other that what was described in the official story! That's the whole point!

Sue Mcelwain noticed a plane fitting the description of an A-10 Warthog flying 40 feet over her car seconds before the impact from the crash. People on the ground noticed the C-130, which the government finally admitted was there. People noticed that the Val McClatchey photo shows a smoke plume far too large and not lined up with the crash site. Three high school students witnessed military planes immediately after the crash. Residents near Indian Lake noticed the sound of a large airliner overhead even though FL 93's flight path didn't take it over Indian Lake.

Q. Why would the government even bother faking the crash of Flight 93? There is a lot of risk with no reward.

A. Just a theory...

The point might have been to create the "passengers are heroes" myth on one level, and on the 2nd level to create the alternative theory that the plane was shot down. The "hero myth" was a very important psychological component of 9/11 that is still being used today. Without the story of FL 93 and the passengers as heroes, the day would have ended on 9/11 as a total victory for the terrorists. This would have created a far more demoralizing national mood.

The "plane was shot down" rumor might have been created just to make the general public believe the government was actually on top of things instead of grossly negligent on 9/11.

Q. The Flight 93 crash site isn't unusual. This is what crash sites look like when a plane goes down nose first.

A. No it's not. As much as some people would like to spread this falsehood, it's simply not true. Here's what happens when a plane flips and crashes nose-first...

This is flight 427 that crashed nose-first near Pittsburgh:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/flight427debris.jpg

posted on 20-5-2007 @ 12:08 AM single this post "quote"REPLY

quote: Originally posted by GwionX What would be the point of this elaborate production?

Just to "fake" something for the sake of "faking" something?

I see absolutely no reward for the risk involved. I see no benefit in any way.

Just a theory...

The point might have been to create the "passengers are heroes" myth on one level, and on the 2nd level to create the alternative theory that the plane was shot down. The "hero myth" was a very important psychological component of 9/11 that is still being used today. Without the story of FL 93 and the passengers as heroes, the day would have ended on 9/11 as a total victory for the terrorists. This would have created a far more demoralizing national mood.

The "plane was shot down" rumor might have been created just to make the general public believe the government was actually on top of things instead of grossly negligent on 9/11.

Q. The flight 93 crash site is not that strange. It is what happens when a plane slams into the earth at a steep angle, and a high rate of speed.

A. No it's not. As much as your buddies at jref would like to spread this falsehood, it's simply not true. Here's what happens when a plane flips and crashes nose-first...

This is flight 427 that crashed nose-first near Pittsburgh:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/flight427debris.jpg

I think this is the Denver crash...

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/planewreckage.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/flight585crashsite.jpg

Here's what the Valujet crash site looked like in the everglades when the plane crashed in the water:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/valuejetengine.jpg

This is what the crash site at FL 93 looked like:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/93overhead.jpg

Q. What about the Kenya Air Flight 507. It crashed and didn't leave any debris either.

A. You failed to mention that the Kenya Air FL 507 crashed in a swamp, and you also failed to mention the photos of the debris. Here they are:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/kenya5072.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/kenya5071.jpg

Do those photos look anything like the FL 93 crash site?

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/nick7261/93woodssmolderingcloseup.jpg

Q. If the government was so evil to kill people on 9/11, why would the same government create a "feel good" story about Flight 93?

A. First, we have a history of the government "sacrificing" Americans for the "greater good." I believe that there was a recent book published that documented FDR's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, and the government's willingness to sacrifice Americans to justify going to war.

The reasons for the "feel good" story are many. First, let's be clear -it wasn't really a "feel good" story. It was more like a "Americans aren't going to put up with terrorists, we're going to fight back" story. What was peculiar to me was when on 9/11/01, John Murtha, for whom the evacuated control tower at Johnstown is named, declared the passengers as heroes within hours after the crash.

Q. This is an interesting theory, but it does not answer all the questions.

A. Sometimes I think people fall into the trap of feeling like we should have answers for everything. The problem is that we only have access to a very small amount of information. There are things we know, things we don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know!

This means that any theorizing away from the official story of Flight 93 is by definition going to include speculations about what we don't know. The reality of what happened can't be changed, and it might not even be able to be figured out later, depending on what evidence has been destroyed.

So I guess what I'm getting to is that not having all the answers to all the questions doesn't necessarily mean that a theory is not worth pursuing.

Q. I still don't understand WHY the government would fake the crash of Flight 93?

A. The most basic "why" could be that 9/11 was originally an AQ plan to fly 2 planes into WTC1 and WTC2. Rather than stop it, "they let it happen" for political and economic reasons. But rather than the attacks being simply on WTC1 and WTC2, there was a decision made to leverage the NY attacks into something much larger -an attack on the U.S. military headquarters.

IMO, there is no explanation for AQ to PLAN that the U.S. would allow Flight 77 to fly unimpeded for 30 minutes after the hijacking and dive into the Pentagon.

The last piece of the puzzle could have been the staging of FL 93 to complete the psyops needed to rally the American public into a "hero" frame of mind. Plus, the added psychological benefit to FL 93 would have been the "rumor" of the shoot down. I.e., the U.S. military can be counted on to protect us.

Q. Why even bother with coming up with alternative theories about Flight 93?

A. It's because I believe that the Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume over the barns may have been doctored in some way. And this isn't based on what I've read online, but on my own multiple trips to Shanksville. The FBI verified the authenticity of this photo twice (at least).

To me, that means that there is a conspiracy to mislead the public about what happened on 9/11. I am fortunate to have relatively easy access to Shanksville.

So I'm not saying that I believe this theory is the gospel truth. I'm saying that at least part of the official story is incorrect, and however improbable it may be, this theory I posted fits the evidence that I know re Shanksville.

Q. If Flight 93 was shot down you'd still have a crater and a large debris field.

A. If you noticed the debris fields of other crashes you will see that there are generally large pieces of the plane left above ground. I'm not sure that other than FL 93 I've ever seen an impact crater in which the entire plane was completely buried. Even the ValueJet crash in the everglades, which created large crater underwater, left debris scattered on the surface.

So IF the plane was shot down, one would expect more plane debris on the surface. Also, if the plane was shot down, then that means the entire CVR transcipt was faked.

Q. This whole theory makes no sense. Why go to all the trouble? What was accomplished?

A. The same questions you posed can be applied to the theory that al-Qaeda and OBL planned 9/11. Of course the answers, when applied to the AQ theory, are that OBL and Islamic facists are fundamentally insane and that normal standards of logic and reason do not apply to them.

But getting back to FL 93 specifically, why would terrorists-hijackers discuss putting the plane down in a field when it appeared the passengers were revolting? Why put the plane down before the passengers broke into the cockpit?

Q.