Conspiracy Theorists: WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?

The UK Mirror ^ | Thursday, 12 September 2002 | Richard Wallace

[justapicker]

Thank you. End of Story.

[Numbers Guy]

Thank you. End of Story.

Ditto.

Just look at the Mirror's story--they cite as one piece of evidence the scrambling of F-16s from the DC area around 9:50 and the Mirror suggests they flew toward Shanksville, then another piece of "evidence" is a sonic boom near Shanksville at 9:20, well before even the Mirror says any F-16s were in the area.

If there was a shootdown after 10 a.m. then the 9:20 "evidence" isn't evidence at all, because it clearly had nothing to do with any military jets. Yet the Mirror is citing this as one of a handful of key pieces of evidence for their theory.

This is a mish-mash of oddities thrown together to create a phony pattern even though the oddities are internally contradictory. As others have noted, an Air Force jet flying 50 feet off the ground would make a bit more noise than what the witness reported, just to name one.

I would have no objection if the Air Force had shot down that plane, but the Mirror's story adds up to very little.

[Aaron_A]

I have no real opinion on this - though my first thought when I heard this last year was that it must have been shot down. Here are a few pics that might be helpful...though I don't think any of these planes are cleared to fire AIM-9s.

---

The C-38 replaces two C-21A transports currently operated by the 201st Air National Guard based at Andrews AFB, Md. It holds 11 passengers and crew, is primarily for operational support and distinguished visitor transport and can be configured for medical evacuation and general cargo duties.

---

C-21

---

[FreeLibertarian]

F-16s have a single engine and a single fin.

The description sounds like an F-14 or F-15 except for the color.

[Maximum Leader]

What are the civilian designations of the C-21 and C-38?

The details of this article a bit confusing. The only combat aircraft with rear engines is an A-10... and though they fly low, you couldn't get it to be go supersonic unless you strapped it to a Saturn V rocket.

This all begs the question, why would the government lie about a shootdown when (as someone mentioned above), there are too many potential eyewitnesses to contradict the story?

[SlickWillard]

Cicero: Bush is no clinton, who lied from instinct, but it's possible that the clintonoid mindset was still lingering in his administration or at the airbase in question, and once they denied there was a shootdown they were stuck with that story.

PackerBoy: I cannot believe that Bush would participate in a cover-up of this magnitude.

Fighting Irish: Because there is no cover up. 93 was not shot down.

To the best of my knowledge, no interviewer has ever asked Bush [or Cheney], "Mr. President [or Mr. Vice President], can you say conclusively, and unequivocally, that no branch of the United States military, to include the United States Air Force, but not limited thereto, was involved in the downing of United Airlines Flight 93, on the morning of September 11, 2001?"

It would be interesting to the response.

[Aaron_A]

The C-38 is an Astra SPX business jet.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-38.htm

The C-21 is a military version of the Learjet 35A.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-21.htm

[Slyfox]

Before Flight 93 crashed we got reports that fighter jets had been dispatched to the remaining planes in the air. I remember hearing about jets making a beeline for DC before the Pentagon was hit and I remember hearing about fighter's being dispatched to PA. Yeah, jets were probably there at the scene, but would there be any reason to shoot it down when it was obvious that 93 was way off course, wasn't anywhere near the Capitol and was already looking like it was going to crash?

[Lucas1]

That picture tells the story...thanks...the other people are either lying or just are confused. It was not shot down...the picture does not lie

[sinkspur]

Thanks for the picture. It seals, once and for all, the fact that the Flight 93 was not shot down.

But, the Riveroistas will continue to insist that it was.

[Maximum Leader]

I thought the C-21 was a Lear, but I don't think I've ever seen an Astra business jet before. Though I have heard that the Astra is what Lockheed calls the Aurora which the Air Force may or may not fly :O)

Thanks for the links.

[willyone]

You must be one of Riveros buddies. Always a conspiracy somewhere. Just renew your SDS membership and be done with it. Fool.

[fone]

The link in my post #5 might be interesting to you.

[thegreatbeast]

I don't know what happened. But unless you supply the exact details of the picture it means nothing and shows nothing. It is just a picture.
If you have a screaming plane over your head from out of nowhere you will see it first because it is travelling faster than sound. If there is a plane crash immediately after the sighting then that sound may be lost amongst all the other stimuli. Likely? No, but certainly possible.
I'm real tired of government deceit though.

[Inkie]

Didn't the relatives recently listen to the cockpit tapes? Wouldn't the tapes have revealed something, since all the voices were recorded (pilots were heard being murdered; hijackers were heard being attacked by the heroes)?

[Chewy]

As for the picture of the smoke cloud, this plane had enough fuel still on board to fly two thirds of the way across the USA. There is nowhere near enough smoke for that amount of fuel. The picture is therefore questionable.

[Aaron_A]

Someone mentioned that the US air-force did not operate any "white" aricraft. Just about all combat and transport planes now feature the "grey" color scheme...but there are still a few "white" planes. Not to mention I was trying to tie in with the aircraft description in the story - the witness mentioned that she couldn't find a picture (on the Internet) of the plane she saw....maybe she checked FAS, maybe not.

The pics are only meant as fwiw.

[Shooter 2.5]

I love the way the tin hats try to make their theories fit the eyewitness accounts. The plane had "that look". Wow! I believe the person already. The article tries to pinpoint small details into the story and then omits the one thing that makes it believable.
The type of aircraft.
How hard is it to have the witnesses draw the exact fighter in our inventory.
They can't do it it without realizing it was not something capable of shooting the flight down.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I've said it before on other threads and I'll state it here again.

Some may feel that the plane was shot down, but it just doesn't matter.

Whether the aircraft was brought down from within or without is immaterial. It was brought down by heroes and patriots who were protecting what this nation stands for. Period.

[steve-b]

At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year.

There are cases in which six eyewitnesses claim to have seen flying saucers piloted by space aliens.

We know from the phone calls that the passengers were planning to take back the plane or die trying. We know that the plane crashed immediately after these calls. The notion that some "mysterious aircraft" was involved is for people who think that "Occam's Razor" is the brand name of the box cutters used by the terrorists.