I can't see why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy.

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the US would shoot down flight 93 and then not admit it.

Had they shot down this flight, had they got fighters up there, fully armed and had somebody taken the dreadful decision to actually do it, then it makes no sense whatsoever to cover it all up.

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.

Had an alternative series of events taken place, then it makes no sense, at all, as to why anybody would wish to cover it up.

And as for the inevitable snarky comments about how cheesy "Let's roll!" sounds... this is America, people. Macho posturing is sort of what we do here.

Why pick on the Flight 93 conspiracy? *None* of the 9/11 CTs make any sense!

I'm betting Dom (TC329) will chime in soon. He sees himself as as a FL93 *expert.*

And, if he does, be prepared for a huge dose of more woo...

stateofgrace said:

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.

Click to expand...

It's more than an opinion that some passengers were planning to storm the cockpit of Flight 93 and probably did storm it. That scenario is backed up by testimony (phone calls from passengers stating that intention) and the cockpit voice recordings and the erratic maneuvering of the plane before it crashed.

BenBurch said:

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

Twoofers continue to hold onto the "shot down" story, among others, for one principal reason in my opinion: The mainstream media reported something else.

The accounts of the MSM are consistant with the final reports made by the authorities. As long as the credibility of the accounts given of Flight 93 can be questioned, all of the MSM reports regarding the events of 9-11 can be regarded as invalid or unreliable (except, of course, those quotes, pictures, lists and explanations that can be taken oiut of context to their "advantage").

Since many CTs have a deep distrust of anything remotely tied to "the establishment" to the point of paranoia, it becomes necessary to make up some more elaborate scenario...one that makes the administration look sinister or at least incompetent. Better yet, claim that some invisible secret organization controls the world and is hiding the truth.

That's my take, anyway.

stateofgrace said:

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.

Click to expand...

I think the truthers don't want to accept the fact that the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers because it goes in the face of their claim that "19 hijackers with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off this attack so successfully!" because when it comes to Flight 93, the hijackers WEREN'T able to successfully pull off their mission, despite boxcutters (and knives, and a bomb, and what was thought to be a gun).

They'd rather say the government shot it down. Of course, if they also believe that the government was the ones who put these planes up in the air, and therefore presumably had control over Flight 93, then it makes no sense why they would shoot down their own plane. If WTC7 is the smoking gun for the 9/11 truth movement, then Flight 93 is its Achilles Heel. No matter how you look at it, there's no logical way of it fitting into any overall conspiracy picture.

I think it's the same angle as why they push talk of WTC7... to (feebly and unsuccessfully) establish that the government lied and covered up things about it, therefore they're lying about Pentagon and WTC 1 & 2 since they can't gain any traction with their "facts" on Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

But I have noticed they've largely jettisoned talk of flight 93... few people drawn in by it, a lot of people offended by what little they have (fake phone calls, calls didn't happen, the story of the passengers taking the plane back is made up).

Yes, and IIRC, so few of the truthers now bite on Flight 93, that TC has been left with CIT and PFT, as his only allies. Fringe of the fringe.

TAM

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

big statement, no proof.

Stick to LIHOP Red, it is where I like you best.

TAM

T.A.M. said:

big statement, no proof.

Stick to LIHOP Red, it is where I like you best.

TAM

Click to expand...

That Flight 93 did crash in that ditch is the claim that requires proof. So where is it?

LIHOP is limited if WTC 7 was brought down by CD. Still, I'd trade MIHOP for prosecutable LIHOP any day of the week.

Like I have said a hundred times, if you are expecting to be brought to a hangar to see the remains of the crash, it will not happen. If only that is good enough...well believe what you want.

TAM

Red, 95%+ of the aircraft and remains of most if not all passengers were recovered "from that ditch," OK? Just because the FBI doesn't give you a guided tour of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To the OP, two reasons.

First of all, Flight 93 has to have been shot down or otherwise done away with, or else the conspiracist narrative -- any flavor of it at all -- falls apart. This is because Flight 93 crashing on its own, in that fashion, proves the existence of highjackers. If the highjackers are real, then bin Laden is real, and all the speculation about remote control and WTC 7 and bombs and space beams comes to a jarring halt. I suppose the most evasive LIHOP hypothesis might yet survive, but for some reason, nobody ever gets interested in those.

Second, Flight 93 is even more "mysterious." Once one accepts that it had to have been deliberate, to keep pace with the other irreducible delusions, one next has to figure out just what its mission was. Crashing in a remote field in Pennsylvania just doesn't lend itself to obvious answers. So, was it engaging some hyper-risky target? Was it never there in the first place (the RedIbis solution)? Or was the plane itself the target, and some excuse needed to shoot it down?

It presents a fun little logical paradox for the conspiracy minded. For some reason, they seem to be drawn to them. I speculate it's because these relatively difficult (read: illogical) puzzles are harder to answer, and so whomever comes up with whatever cockamamie solution is more likely to be noticed in the paranoid community. Pure speculation, though, I really don't know.

R.Mackey said:

Red, 95%+ of the aircraft and remains of most if not all passengers were recovered "from that ditch," OK? Just because the FBI doesn't give you a guided tour of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

So we should just take their word for it. And you call yourself a skeptic?

Was it never there in the first place (the RedIbis solution)? Or was the plane itself the target, and some excuse needed to shoot it down?

Click to expand...

We don't have the benefit of knowing how Flight 93 fit into the conspiracy. Can you say for sure what the terrorists were planning to do with the plane?

It presents a fun little logical paradox for the conspiracy minded. For some reason, they seem to be drawn to them. I speculate it's because these relatively difficult (read: illogical) puzzles are harder to answer, and so whomever(sic) comes up with whatever cockamamie solution is more likely to be noticed in the paranoid community. Pure speculation, though, I really don't know.

Click to expand...

At least you're honest. So far you have the word of the FBI that 95% of the plane and its contents were recovered. Yet, the available photographs don't even come close to accounting for that figure. In other words, you don't have much.

This is why people bother researching yet another mystery in a whole series of mysteries.

RedIbis said:

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

Click to expand...

A lie. No evidence, just make up a lie.

93 caused the impact crater, and was found in and around the crater. That is what it should look like.

Ironic, you have failed to understand 9/11 after 6 years, the passengers on Flight 93 figured 9/11 out in minutes. Irony, they took action, you don't. If you did you would take your evidence to the police, or news!

Oh, no evidence. Sorry.

beachnut said:

A lie. No evidence, just make up a lie.

93 caused the impact crater, and was found in and around the crater. That is what it should look like.

Ironic, you have failed to understand 9/11 after 6 years, the passengers on Flight 93 figured 9/11 out in minutes. Irony, they took action, you don't. If you did you would take your evidence to the police, or news!

Oh, no evidence. Sorry.

Click to expand...

100 tons of Flight 93 and its contents or a few scraps from the nearby scrapyard?

Red:

You are talking about multiple institutions here, who must be lying for your theory to be true. You have the FBI, the First Responders, The prosecutors in the Moussaoui Trial, Numerous others who all have to be lying.

So you are saying that the FBI, and the dozens of agents who worked at the Flight 93 site are lying? The first responders, lying? Don't answer, as it is rhetorical.

TAM

RedIbis said:

At least you're honest. So far you have the word of the FBI that 95% of the plane and its contents were recovered. Yet, the available photographs don't even come close to accounting for that figure. In other words, you don't have much.

This is why people bother researching yet another mystery in a whole series of mysteries.

Click to expand...

Red... to be honest... every time I hear the canard that 'too little debris' was found at the crash site I think of Valujet 592, that crashed in '96. I was 9 years old when that happened, and I still remember the news clips of it... there wasn't anything recognizable left.... The claim that there wasn't enough debris is alone not enough to make anything suspicious because that easily has precedence. If I went by that same logic I'd have to as well consider the crash of valujet 592 as a conspiracy as well...

And 592, is far from the first to have ended up like flight 93...