MovieChat Forums > United 93 (2006) Discussion > I still think the US military shot it do...

I still think the US military shot it down


And if they did, would that be terribly shocking though?

reply

The military did not shoot down the plane. Air traffic controllers were not aware that United 93 was hijacked until minutes after the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. The plane headed right toward the Washington Capitol then it turned around and went the opposite direction. I went to the 9/11 memorial museum and they had the actual 9-1-1 call with one of the passengers on it saying that they were going to take over the plane and stop the terrorists.

reply

Let's Roll!

reply

No. Air traffic control already got a mayday call seconds after the the hijacking had started. Then there are the many calls of passengers stating the plane had been hijacked.

Nobody's saying the passengers didn't try to stop the terrorists. I think it's pretty clear they did try.

reply

Oh gotcha, that makes sense. :)

reply

I also believe it's very much possible. And although understandable, it's not information they would ever reveal.

reply

wrong

reply

What do you know? Were you there? And are you saying they would actually reveal that kind of information?

reply

read the 9/11 Commission Report.

reply

Lol, because the 9/11 commission would ever acknowledge something like that? You'd have to be a psycho to hurt the victims' families in that way.

reply

the terrorists hurt the families.

reply

Good lord, are you really going to use dramatics to deflect from the issue? No one in their right mind is going to add to their pain by telling them that while their loved ones were trying to stop the terrorists and perhaps save the plane, the powers-that-be decided to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a bunch of politicians in Washington. Capisce?

reply

you dropped your tin foil hat

reply

I could very well accuse you of being hopelessly naive. You do know that OFFICIALLY Bush did give military pilots the authority to shoot down passenger planes 15 minutes after United 93 went down?

reply

So your "degree" is in Voodoo?

reply

Lol, how much have you been drinking, Mitch???

What the freak does an Afro-Caribbean religion have to do with fighter pilots actually having the authority that day to take down hijacked planes?

reply

NO MISSILES WERE FIRED, End of story.

reply

You are no authority on that whatsoever, you are just a Canadian accountant (or so you claim).

reply

What do you know? Were you there? Your own questions apply to your claim.

reply

Now that's faulty logic because I never claimed anyone was "wrong" for thinking otherwise. I simply said I believe it's "very much possible". Capisce?

reply

If that helps you, lets go with it.

reply

Well no, it should help YOU so you won't make a fool of yourself again.πŸ‘

reply

wrong

reply

On 9/11 I was at work and I was in the cafeteria listening to the radio that afternoon. Nobody could work at all because of the situation. At one point the announcer said that a United States Air Force jet had shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. Nothing more was said and there were no retractions of the story or further mention. The story just changed a day or so later to the "Let's Roll!" hero narrative.

Of course this is the kind of unpleasant thing that the Government would want hushed up. It's entirely plausible that this plane was shot down to prevent a further attack. I think this is actually more plausible than the movie-style event that has become the official story. Many holes in the official story, including Mark Bingham, the passenger who supposedly called his own mother before the counterattack and said "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham speaking."

reply

So the government that wanted it hushed up announced it over the radio?

reply

LOL. You deliberately try to make the idea sound so stupid and ridiculous without considering the chain-of-command effect.

My guess is that in the confusion of the moment, the truth leaked out to the news via some underling relatively low down in the food chain, then more calculating higher-ups immediately hushed and 'revised' the story to make it more palatable.

Addendum RE. Mark Bingham. Another interesting thing Bingham did during his call was insistently tell his family "You've got to believe me!" when none of them were even questioning his story of being hijacked.

reply

"Hi mom it's me. Mark Bingham." Do you do that when you call your mom? When I call her I say, "Hi mom." I don't announce my name.

reply

I do, especially if I am not using "my phone" My parents have mixed families, with multiple children, some birthed, some adopted and some step.

reply

So your mother wouldn't be able to recognize you unless you add your last name???

reply

Maybe mcqueen and his step, adopted, and half-siblings all were given the same first name, like the children of George Foreman are all named George. So he'd have to identify himself as Eugene McQueen, because there also would be a Eugene Smith, a Eugene Goldberg, a Eugene Fong, etc. in the family.

reply

Yikes, I'd hate to be George Foreman's daughter!

reply

Georgetta.

reply

So what is your theory then? What does Mark giving his full name suggest to you?

reply

I made the idea sound ridiculous, by asking you a question?

Did you consider the possibly that the announcer got the news wrong in their rush to be the first to report it?

Do you have an explanation why there was no debris North West of the crash? The plane was traveling South East towards D.C. so if it was hit by a missile there would be debris along the flight path before impact.

reply

I made the idea sound ridiculous, by asking you a question?


No. You tried and failed by posing an ingenuous question that you thought had no reasonable, sensible response because you neglected to consider the situation thoroughly. Your intent with this answer was to totally destroy the entire theory in one, neat, crushing blow. Sorry.

Did you consider the possibly that the announcer got the news wrong in their rush to be the first to report it?


I rejected this explanation because in that case, a clear retraction and correction would have been offered. The story would not simply have been shitcanned and re-released later in an altered form.


Do you have an explanation why there was no debris North West of the crash? The plane was traveling South East towards D.C. so if it was hit by a missile there would be debris along the flight path before impact.


An obvious answer would be that the individual flying the plane was trying to evade the military jet and altered the course prior to being struck by the missile.

reply

No, i asked a question based on what you posted. Its funny that you think I should come up with an explanation for the gaping hole that you left in your original post. This theory didnt sound ridiculous until you suggested that a passenger plane could even try to evade a military jet. But thats all irrelevant anyway. This theory doesn't survive basic crash investigation. A missile hit would result in breakup in flight and spread out debris. This crash was the result of controlled flight into terrain with minimal debris.

reply

This theory didnt sound ridiculous until you suggested that a passenger plane could even try to evade a military jet.


I hardly think they would have attacked without offering an option to alter course and be safely escorted to a military landing field, given that there were hundreds of civilians onboard.

reply

😊😊

reply

I do remember that in the hours after the plane crashed, the media mentioned claims that it was shot down. It's not something conspiracy theorists came up with later on.

reply

Dude , here's the real people behind 9/11

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

reply

Not shocking as it was mentioned the WH ordered it to be shot down but before they could, it crashed due to revolt against the jihadi's on board the plane. End of story. Anything else is just speculation and conspiracy theory after the investigation had concluded. People will say anything that they thought had happened at that moment in time.

reply

Then you've clearly never seen the wreckage of a plane having been shot down

reply

The 9/11 commission report was pretty clear on the fate of flight 93.

People often ask "How can I trust it?"

The answer is that men were found of the upmost integrity and honor to investigate and write the report, they just didn't pick anybody. If a alternative truth were found out, their reputations and their FAMILIES reputations would be in the gutter for generations to come. The careers of these men, who worked their whole life to attain, would be in tatters.

Democratic governments, with their duty to freedom of the press and speech, cannot keep secrets for long.

reply

You can think whatever you want, that doesn't make factual...
And yes, it would be shocking

reply