FLIGHT 93
Don,
Thanks for the link. It seems to be well researched, while remaining open-minded about what to conclude from the facts.
Re: The above site appears to favor the theory the plane was shot down,
I agree. What I don't understand is why the government would be reluctant to admit to shooting the craft down. Perhaps liability and public relations considerations are paramount? In a situation where the plane were under the control of "terrorists", it would seem the government could successfully argue a court case that shooting the plane down was a prudent and necessary intervention. I haven't got a clear answer why the Bushies seem to be covering up the truth on how Flight 93 was brought down.
***
Re: So, for some reason, power to the recorder was cut prior to impact.
This would be perfectly consistent with a theory that the plane was hit mid-air by a missile which broke the plane apart. Which also explains the wide debris field.
****
Re: It's physically impossible for stuff to fly up into the air from the point of impact and travel against the wind for several miles, which is what the official theory calls for.
Hey, Don. This is in Pennsylvania, after all. Arlen Specter is on the case. Remember his whopper, er, plausible speculation about the JFK assassination and the "single bullet theory"?
***
Re: I don't buy the theories the planes were remote controlled. The concept strikes me as too complicated to be practical.
What is perfectly clear is that the Dept. of Defense has the capability to do so. They've demonstrated it with the Predator drones and other aircraft types. But remote control is only one option. The other is automated control which does not need to rely on line of sight radio control, AWACS mission control or actually any human intervention once the program gains control of the aircraft. It can be accomplished by automating a flight plan by means of GPS coordinates without any human intervention whatsoever.
There was a troubling aspect to the two impacts on the WTC towers that has bothered me since I first saw the image of the second WTC plane on final approach. What the plane did, curiously, was to corkscrew so that at impact, it was not in level flight, but rather was tilted at about 35-40 degrees off level. The purpose for this is obvious. It spreads the jet fuel on several floors rather than on one or two. What I've questioned is whether such a sophisticated and subtle a maneuver would be obvious to a rank amateur pilot who would have to be feeling a wee bit tense about the impending end of his existence. Such a degree of control indicates an extraordinary grace under pressure by rank amateur pilots. I've always thought that sort of maneuver would be much more likely to have been programmed in a simulator and installed in an automated flight control system.
***
Re: Remember security was controlled by an Israeli company, and getting someone on board for 10-20 minutes to place charges wouldn't be a big deal.
That is an interesting detail. Do you happen to have the name of the Israeli security company?
***
Re: If, as many of us suspect, it was a government project,
The remarkable lengths that Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft have gone to to obstruct investigations into the matter clearly is deeply troubling. Frankly, I'm a bit amazed at the fact that the American public isn't up in arms over the fact that we are obviously being stonewalled and lied to by the government.
***
Re: Means, motive and opportunity.
With the DoD spending $1 Billion per day, just in known projects, there certainly is the means within that octopus. Black budgets, being what they are, will always be something to be suspicious of. The motive, of course, is obvious. Since 9-11, military/intelligence budgets have skyrocketed, offering vast rewards to the sector. I always like to ask cui bono? regarding something like the attacks on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda clearly weren't winners. DoD clearly was.
As far as opportunity, I'm reminded of Operation Northwoods.
Message 17525586
As the saying goes, "the best way to predict the future, is to create it".
-R. |
