Shanksville Chapter Extra

Post your opinions, concerns, and anything related to the new film here.

Shanksville Chapter Extra

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 12 2008, 10:05 PM #1

Little something I tacked on to the Shanksville Chapter regarding United 93. If this isn't proof the military had the opportunity to take out UA93, I don't know what is.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... 21221&st=0

What are your thoughts?

Comments?
Quote
Like
Share

Comeoutofthecupboards
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 14 2007, 01:21 AM

Jan 13 2008, 12:55 AM #2

Gideon524 @ Jan 12 2008, 10:05 PM wrote: Little something I tacked on to the Shanksville Chapter regarding United 93.  If this isn't proof the military had the opportunity to take out UA93, I don't know what is.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... 21221&st=0

What are your thoughts?

Comments?
In your opinion, what are the main points of this film, what are the points that you want to draw our attention to? You say they had the opportunity to take out the plane but they say they didn't have the ability?

I was interested to hear that a hijack code had been received, having read somewhere that no hijack codes were received by the FAA.
"This is like renting a palace then living in the cupboard under the stairs" Simon Fraser

Crazy for you!
Quote
Like
Share

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 13 2008, 01:08 AM #3

The objective is to point out the blatant contradictions between the Commish and the official story as of 9/11/02.

They lied about the shootdown order being passed to the pilots, NEADS being informed during the hijack, and the military awareness...John Farmer states "No one at FAA passed any information it had on UA93 to the military"...but then you listen to Gen. Winfield say the exact opposite."

I'm not saying the plane was shot down. But it sure seems like they're trying to hide the fact that they certainly had the opportunity to take it out.
Quote
Like
Share

Comeoutofthecupboards
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 14 2007, 01:21 AM

Jan 13 2008, 01:22 AM #4

I've watched this film at least 5 times and am still not making full sense of it. There's alot of information here (or not here).
"This is like renting a palace then living in the cupboard under the stairs" Simon Fraser

Crazy for you!
Quote
Like
Share

Swordsman
Newbie
Joined: Dec 5 2007, 03:40 PM

Jan 13 2008, 01:45 AM #5

Gideon524 @ Jan 12 2008, 08:08 PM wrote: The objective is to point out the blatant contradictions between the Commish and the official story as of 9/11/02.

They lied about the shootdown order being passed to the pilots, NEADS being informed during the hijack, and the military awareness...John Farmer states "No one at FAA passed any information it had on UA93 to the military"...but then you listen to Gen. Winfield say the exact opposite."

I'm not saying the plane was shot down. But it sure seems like they're trying to hide the fact that they certainly had the opportunity to take it out.
The timeline Winfield is talking about is an estimate of where the plane would be if it where continuing on its course toward Washington. It had, in fact, already crashed by then, the military just didn't know it. When they are saying they received a report that the plane is 60 miles away, it's just an estimate based on the last known data. The plane had already crashed.
That's why they gave a "shoot down order" to a pair of planes that had no means to shoot down the plane.
No fighters were ever anywhere near United 93 while it was still in the sky. The fighters that could have shot the plane down were flying CAP over DC. Had 93 threatened DC airspace, those planes would have taken it out.
They had no opportunity to shoot any of the planes down.
Quote
Like
Share

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 13 2008, 01:50 AM #6

The timeline Winfield is talking about is an estimate of where the plane would be if it where continuing on its course toward Washington. It had, in fact, already crashed by then, the military just didn't know it.
Oh really? Is that why he says, "it was about 1003 when THE FIGHTERS REPORTED that Flight 93 had crashed"
No fighters were ever anywhere near United 93 while it was still in the sky.
So you were there?
The fighters that could have shot the plane down were flying CAP over DC.
The 9/11 Commission doesn't seem to think so. They say that the plane would've reached its target, whatever it was, had the passengers not taken it down. Might want to go back and re-read the Commish if you're gonna attempt to defend it.
They had no opportunity to shoot any of the planes down.
Not even AA77, eh? Even though Cheney and Mineta watched it come in from at least 50 miles out. So, the orders that "still stand" were what? Stand down orders?
Quote
Like
Share

Comeoutofthecupboards
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 14 2007, 01:21 AM

Jan 13 2008, 02:15 AM #7

This film needs taking apart piece by piece, lots of questions, time checks and cross referencing. Either I'm tired (yes) and/or that film f**ked with my head. Somehow your main point just got lost there.
"This is like renting a palace then living in the cupboard under the stairs" Simon Fraser

Crazy for you!
Quote
Like
Share

illeagalhunter
Advanced Member
illeagalhunter
Advanced Member
Joined: Jan 11 2007, 07:12 PM

Jan 13 2008, 04:20 AM #8

its not @ Dylans standard , good thou
CODE
Quote
Like
Share

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 13 2008, 04:30 AM #9

illeagalhunter @ Jan 12 2008, 11:20 PM wrote: its not @ Dylans standard , good thou
Well duh...

I'm not a professional. I just wanted to get the info out there.

Was it easy to follow and understand?
Quote
Like
Share

Terrorcell
Advanced Member
Terrorcell
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 21 2006, 06:44 AM

Jan 13 2008, 05:57 AM #10

B)
REICHSTAG 911 : PART I : THE NEW WORLD ORDER & 9/11

REICHSTAG 911 : PART II : THE DEATH OF FREEDOM IN AMERICA
With such intense technical planning in other aspects do you not think they would have said we shouldn't :

A) hit the (light) poles
B ) blow up the WTC
C) blow up WTC7
D) fake hijackers
E) bomb the GWB bridge
F) fake bin laden taps

because the guys on the Internet will figure it out?
See if you can guess the correct answer for what came out of a "9/11 Truther"!!
Quote
Like
Share

Lin Kuei
Advanced Member
Lin Kuei
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 2 2007, 03:10 PM

Jan 13 2008, 09:48 PM #11

Great stuff Gideon!
Quote
Like
Share

Comeoutofthecupboards
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 14 2007, 01:21 AM

Jan 13 2008, 10:20 PM #12

Commission Report: United Airlines Flight 93

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/repo ... rt_Ch1.pdf

P28
"This is like renting a palace then living in the cupboard under the stairs" Simon Fraser

Crazy for you!
Quote
Like
Share

fedzcametogetme
Advanced Member
fedzcametogetme
Advanced Member
Joined: Jun 17 2007, 05:36 AM

Jan 14 2008, 02:42 AM #13

the one part that struck me really odd (not about the movie, but about the assertion that) the fighters heading out to "intercept" 93, were NOT armed with missiles. the guy in the video claims it would have been the pilot's duty to crash his own plane into the alleged U93. is it me, or is that wack? is he serious? a pilot (in training!) attempting to take 93 out by crashing his own plane into it?

so im not sure whats really going on there. is it possible that the interceptors had missiles and he is lying? can anyone shed light on that subject?
Quote
Like
Share

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 14 2008, 02:52 AM #14

fedzcametogetme @ Jan 13 2008, 09:42 PM wrote: so im not sure whats really going on there. is it possible that the interceptors had missiles and he is lying? can anyone shed light on that subject?
I'm sure it's possible but there's no way to prove it. I've heard that a few sets of fighters were sent after UA93, maybe even the Langley fighters.

I've also heard from two different people, who don't research 9/11 in their spare time, that fighters from the Air National Guard out of Andrews left with missles but returned without them.

I've also heard from people who lived in the area of WV that UA93 passed over that fighters were seen chasing after the plane.

Don't know if I believe those things, but it's what I've been hearing for the last several years. This video raises a lot of new questions.
Quote
Like
Share

Comeoutofthecupboards
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 14 2007, 01:21 AM

Jan 15 2008, 11:49 PM #15

Gideon524

"That brings us to the shoot down order" - Commission "Sometime between 10.10 and 10.15" a military aide told the VP and others that the plane was 80 miles out? (10.03 (crashed[fighters reported]) 10.07!! military aware?!?)......"10.12-10.18 - 60 miles out".
"This is like renting a palace then living in the cupboard under the stairs" Simon Fraser

Crazy for you!
Quote
Like
Share

G524
Advanced Member
G524
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM

Jan 16 2008, 12:56 AM #16

Comeoutofthecupboards @ Jan 15 2008, 06:49 PM wrote: Gideon524

"That brings us to the shoot down order" - Commission "Sometime between 10.10 and 10.15" a military aide told the VP and others that the plane was 80 miles out? (10.03 (crashed[fighters reported]) 10.07!! military aware?!?)......"10.12-10.18 - 60 miles out".
I put that in there to show the official side of the story.

That video shows clearly that the military was tracking the plane BEFORE it crashed and that fighter jets reported the crash at the same time it actually did crash, at 10:03, according to Winfield.

When you listen to Winfield's story, he clearly talks about fighters heading to intercept BEFORE UA93 crashed because one of the last thing he says in his interview is "It was about 10:03 when the FIGHTERS REPORTED that Flight 93 had crashed."

Do the math.
Quote
Like
Share

Hetware
Advanced Member
Hetware
Advanced Member
Joined: Dec 26 2006, 05:11 AM

Jan 17 2008, 11:10 PM #17

One thing to keep in mind regarding the sequence of what people report hearing and seeing, is that the speeds of propagation of different kinds of sensory input are not the same. This is source of the phenomena we experience when lightning is visually observed seconds before the consequent thunder is heard.

If a missile were to fly over at a significant distance relative to the distance to the impact, it is conceivable that the lights would go out due to the damage to the power grid (which did occur), then the missile would be heard, next the ground would tremble, and finally the explosion would be heard.
"No operational commander should have to assign a soldier a task that could be done as well by a computer, a remote sensor, or an unmanned [Do passengers count?] airplane." -- Richard Perle
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: