See other Editorial Articles
Title: "The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
Published: May 19, 2012
Author: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
Post Date: 2012-05-19 18:03:51 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 2113
Comments: 164
"The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93" The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him): "I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true. The US Air Force shot down Flight 93. I haven't told this to many people. I told my parents and other family members shortly after I left the military. They didn't believe it. I figured no one else would either. I kept my mouth shut. Everyone was dedicated to the president and the country (not really) And anything that went against the Official, media delivered story was viewed as unpatriotic. I knew that I loved this country, so I kept my mouth shut. I just can't do that anymore. I know that I don't have any documents to prove it, and I have no way of knowing where the others involved are now days, so I can't prove anything. All I have is my word. and with God as my witness that is the truth."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: Artisan (#17)
Moron maybe. Shot down, no. Show me any statement by any person that says, "I shot down flight 93', or any person that said, "I ordered flight 93 shot down" or any person that says I heard the order given or any person that says I saw it, or any person that says I watched it done on radar. I would like to read it.
No more than I believe people that DID NOT SEE Flt 93 crash. They admit they were not there, saw nothing, heard nothing.
I admit, I was not there, I saw nothing. Does the government lie???? Certainly. Do they lie when they have NO CONTROL over hundreds of people involved? No. Case in point, USS Liberty. Government had total control of all persons involved, tried to contain the episode by lying,and intimidating the crew, it did not work.
Bill... Jabbing a stick into a hornets nest ALWAYS brings a swarm of very angry hornets. One can either run or wear a veil of common sense that thwarts the hornets.
how did lisa jefferson know whe was talking to todd beamer?
You are evading the issues Cyni. What is the physical evidence telling us? Doors are not ejected 8 miles from a crash impact site - unless the plane is in a hypersonic flight path and probably not even then. Engines are not ejected a mile from a crash site. The debris field from a normal crash is less than a quarter mile. We have eyewitness reports of debris raining down 8 miles out. The only way that happens is if the aircraft was already breaking up in the air. So, eyewitness reports exist of people seeing what they believe were military aircraft operating in the area. Between the debris field and the various witness reports the explanation that best seems to fit is that the aircraft was shot down. You may want to resist that conclusion, but in the end it is not my conclusion to make for you, but what does the evidence suggest? Just because a missile went missing doesn't mean it hit flight 93.
"The few who understand the [FEDERAL RESERVE] system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
No idea. I committed nothing to memory.
we're not talking about memory... we're talking about logic. if the neocons had technology enough to fly the airplanes into those buildings, they surely had the technology to spoof phone calls from "todd beamer" to lisa jefferson... do you remember all those AEI yahoos on television commenting on 9/11? ...they're all saying, "hey, it took years to plan this operation!" how did they know it took bin laden years to plan the operation? ...because it took them years to plan the operation? and this "todd beamer/let's roll" operation went off without a hitch, didnt it? ...because it was one of those little touches that they had years to plan... ...meanwhile, the jessica lynch operation, a comparable operation with an ad hoc sort of feel to it, failed, because they improvised it, and unfortunately, jessica survived to debunk it.
So, eyewitness reports exist of people seeing what they....... believe were military...... aircraft operating in the area. OI, therein lies the problem with speculation, people honestly believe, after the fact what they saw or heard. They may well be right but they also may be wrong. There were dozens of people, military and civilian, that were watching all of this unfold on radar. To my knowledge there has not been one person that has stepped forward and acknowledged a shoot down, witnessed by them on radar, not one. Accepting a shoot down, there was no way all the civilians could have been muzzled. Not one person involved in the shoot down has ever stepped forward, not one. It is all conjecture and speculation based on what people believe.
Not logic at all, nothing but conjecture, speculation and even wishful thinking.
...during an excercise that was designed to befuddle radar operators by giving them phony bogies on their screens.
the logic says that, if neocons needed a new pearl harbor, and got into position to make their new pearl harbor happen, they made it happen.
Nonsense.
is ignorance an excuse if you're olde enough? operations northern vigilance and vigilant guardian what kind of dog do you have in this fight?
I do not respond to personal posts. Keep it impersonal please.
so cyicom is unable to explan the debris trail, he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that lisa jefferson never talked to todd beamer. he refuses to acknowledge the similarities between the todd beamer operation and jessica lynch, and he's ignorant of the simulated attack on america that was taking place on 9/11. he refuses to acknowledge that PNAC admitted they needed a new pearl harbor, and their new pearl harbor happened soon after they got into position to make it happen. he refuses to acknowledge the pattern of deception that underlies the whole 9- 11/PNAC/AEI/"war on terror" operation. why is all that?
What else is the government concealing about 9/11? Like who did it. Hard fact. Tom... Want to hear my take on who did it????
This is true. Boy, did you ever stir up trouble Cyni :P
the PNAC people had been planning the operation for decades... the technology matured, peak oil was looming, israel was getting in deeper and deeper shit as it was condemned for its abuse of palestinians by the human rights conference in durban just before 9/11... surprisingly, the human rights conference was getting lots of play in the american media, but 9/11 put an end to that, and solidified israeli control of america. so, taking all that into mind, especially the fact that these people had decades to plan, it's no wonder that the todd beamer/let's roll operation was such a success... and by virtue of its success, the operation becomes suspect, especially when so much contradictory evidence exists, especially when the operation follows such a well-established pattern of deception. it could have happened just like the official conspiracy theory says... but there are some pretty serious unanswered questions... and the whole atmosphere surrounding the operation and subsequent events is poisonous.
Very true.
but cynicom likes this particular dose of poison
Interesting reading... Witnesses...... A message to 9/11 conspiracists from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart. It is likely that hundreds of people directly saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Dozens were interviewed by numerous news outlets: Witness List 1 – List 2 – List 3 – List 4 – List 5 – More Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file) Many witnesses were in their cars, in a traffic jam directly in front of the Pentagon. Most of those people drove away and were not interviewed. Below is a summary of the accounts quoted in the lists and spreadsheet summary above. These are mostly accounts that appeared in mainstream media reports. Many more people probably witnessed the attack. From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." And of course, 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away. Video: pilot Aziz ElHallan saw flight 77 hit Pentagon, shows aircraft debris that landed near his car. No plane hit the Pentagon? Tell that to Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton, all of whom saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn. Probst dove out of the way to avoid being hit by the 757's right engine, which tore through this fence and damaged the construction generator trailer at right:
cynicom seems to think he's on more solid ground when he confirms the official conspiracy theory of the pentagon strike. maybe he's given up on the pennsylvania crash/shootdown or whatever it was.
Can we please keep on the subject, not personal attacking??? If you have time, this is a short video done by the pilot of the AC130 that was in the area.''He was there, he saw it, he reported and it and it is on tape.
you can dish it out, but you cant take it, huh? poor poor baby cynicom... you can attack me, because you're a holyhoax survivor, but i cant attack you back. i know how the game is played.
When a man has an empty quiver it always shows, for they turn to personal attacks.
lol.....the Pentagon is known for truth, transparency and accuracy. The Pentagon would NEVER alter a spreadsheet. " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
which is why you attack me, but cant refute my arguments. meanwhile, arguing about these details is pointless... the facts remain... PNAC, spawned by the AEI, who are jewish neocons allied with the likud party of israel, said they needed a new pearl harbor. they were then installed into positions from which they could make their new pearl harbor happen, then their new pearl harbor happened... and the official conspiracy theory explaining 9/11 and subsequent events is so full of holes that you got to be an idiot to really believe it... but it's a plan to keep the system alive for a while longer, so lots of people give lip service to the official theoryeven if they know it's a crock, because they want to deny reality as long as possible. with any luck at all, we can prolong the agony until we all get rich enough to buy refuge once the shit hits the fan.
For sure. So far however I have seen no one prove otherwise. A plane hit the Pentagon, they could not lie about that as too many people saw it. Of course people that were not there and saw nothing know better and spread only the gospel.
I am willing to talk with anyone that was there that day and saw a missile at the Pentagon, or anyone that saw the shoot down in Pa. No one here claims such.
are you willing to admit that the todd beamer story fits the pattern of deception that seems to be standard operating procedure for the neocons? how do you explain the debris trail? or are we all being victimized by propaganda and disinformation that's designed to confuse us and set us at each other's throats? who would benefit from such a campaign?
If what you state is true, then why doesn't the Pentagon simply release the MULTIPLE VIDEOS that would substantiate this claim? Every angle is in the possession of the Pentagon. Yet, only one video that doesn't show a plane or prove their allegations one iota is all that is released. In fact, the Pentagon went around and confiscated EVERY VIDEO from PRIVATE business surveillance and refuse to return it to the rightful owners. Now, tell me Cyni, why go to all that trouble if what they claim is the truth? People are prone to "see" what they believe is plausible, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. And still, your "witness list" is all courtesy of the Pentagon and you agree that this source is not reliable. Also, you discount the hundreds of witnesses who DO NOT report what the Pentagon witnesses report. Are their accounts somehow less relevant than your Pentagon spreadsheet? " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
and i really got to say, cynicom, that you're a dismal little prick when you whine about me attacking you after you attack me. what is it that gives you immunity from payback?
how do you explain the debris trail? Admit nothing and explain nothing. really not interested in speculative theories, prefer to go with what those involved saw and heard etc. Yet to see or read of one person that says they saw the plane shot down. perhaps I missed something. Hundreds saw a plane hit the Pentagon, yet no one saw a missile. Yet people not there say it was a missile. sort of an imbalance there. Plane was shot down but no one saw it. Thin gruel there.
thin gruel that the plane left a debris trail for miles in its wake before it crashed.
Not a clue. Not releasing a tape does not negate what hundreds saw, or smelled. I really doubt that the gubmint got all of those people to lie and say they saw an airplane. Sort of a contradiction.
This gal was IN THE PENTAGON at the time......does she count as a credible witness? She says NO PLANE and she escaped the building from the hole that was way to small for a 747 to fly through. No evidence of a plane, no jet fuel, no seats, no plane debris, nobody else in the area saw any evidence of a plane. Do you think she is included in the Pentagon spreadsheet? " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
Comments (76 - 164) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestonly a moron would believe the government version of how 9/11 happened.
#36. To: RickyJ (#16)
I can find thousands of people that say they have seen aliens, are you going to believe them?
#37. To: Original_Intent (#14)
#38. To: Bill D Berger, All (#9)
#39. To: Cynicom (#38)
common sense
#40. To: Cynicom, Artisan, Jethro Tull, all (#37)
I admit, I was not there, I saw nothing.
#41. To: tom007 (#0)
#42. To: lead.and.lag (#39)
how did lisa jefferson know whe was talking to todd beamer?
#43. To: Cynicom (#42)
(Edited)
I committed nothing to memory.
#44. To: Original_Intent (#40)
So, eyewitness reports exist of people seeing what they believe were military aircraft operating in the area.
#45. To: lead.and.lag (#43)
we're not talking about memory... we're talking about logic.
#46. To: Cynicom (#44)
(Edited)
watching all of this unfold on radar...
#47. To: Cynicom (#45)
wishful thinking
#48. To: lead.and.lag (#46)
..during an excercise that was designed to befuddle radar operators by giving them phoney bogies on their screens.
#49. To: Cynicom (#48)
nonsense
#50. To: lead.and.lag (#49)
#51. To: All (#49)
(Edited)
#52. To: Bill D Berger (#9)
Most people would agree that under the circumstances, it was the best course of action. The point is that we are seeing clear evidence of the manipulation of information being fed to the public regarding 9/11.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
#53. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Ground impacts, even at high speed, do not create a debris field that extends out 8 miles.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
#54. To: tom007 (#52)
Like who did it.
#55. To: noone222 (#41)
Just because a missile went missing doesn't mean it hit flight 93.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
#56. To: Cynicom (#54)
#57. To: All (#51)
#58. To: lead.and.lag (#57)
. and the whole atmosphere surrounding the operation and subsequent events is poisonous.
#59. To: Cynicom (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: lead.and.lag, Jethro Tull, all (#59)
#61. To: Cynicom (#60)
#62. To: lead.and.lag (#61)
#63. To: Cynicom (#62)
Can we please keep on the subject, not personal attacking???
#64. To: lead.and.lag (#63)
#65. To: Cynicom (#60)
Pentagon witness spreadsheet
#66. To: Cynicom (#64)
(Edited)
When a man has an empty quiver it always shows, for they turn to personal attacks.
#67. To: abraxas (#65)
lol.....the Pentagon is known for truth, transparency and accuracy. The Pentagon would NEVER alter a spreadsheet.
#68. To: lead.and.lag (#66)
#69. To: Cynicom (#68)
#70. To: Cynicom (#67)
(Edited)
A plane hit the Pentagon, they could not lie about that as too many people saw it.
#71. To: Cynicom (#68)
#72. To: lead.and.lag (#69)
are you willing to admit that the todd beamer story fits the pattern of deception that seems to be standard operating procedure for the neocons?
#73. To: Cynicom (#72)
Thin gruel
#74. To: abraxas (#70)
then why doesn't the Pentagon simply release the MULTIPLE VIDEOS that would substantiate this claim?
#75. To: Cynicom (#72)
.
.
.