The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93

[nanovapor]

The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93

George Washington's Blog (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/120408Shot.htm

Saturday, April 12, 2008

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.

[Colonello Buendia]

sounds interesting, I'm not sure I want to trust it completely without other evidence to back it up but I definitely think this should be investigated

[BIG BROTHER]

I wouldn't discard the posibility of that being true, but wouldn't a missilie destroy the plane beyond recognition?

[Psy]

I wouldn't discard the posibility of that being true, but wouldn't a missilie destroy the plane beyond recognition?
Air to Air missiles are actually not that powerful, they are designed to be fast thus their pay load is light, the idea is to cause enough damage to the enemy aircraft so gravity does most of the work.

[BIG BROTHER]

Air to Air missiles are actually not that powerful, they are designed to be fast thus their pay load is light, the idea is to cause enough damage to the enemy aircraft so gravity does most of the work.

ahh!, so then it would be posible for that theory to be true.

[jake williams]

ahh!, so then it would be posible for that theory to be true.
Not really. People making random, anonymous comments on blogs are not exactly the sanest, most reliable commentators on 9/11.

[ckaihatsu]

Not really. People making random, anonymous comments on blogs are not exactly the sanest, most reliable commentators on 9/11.


Yeah, well, people you talk to in person, in the course of your life, then, are just random commentators, but face-to-face, instead of through computers.

How do we know anything about anything? Try the scientific method:



Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Organic Revolution]

According to a friend of mine in the Air Force, that isn't the right language that they would use over communications. This is bullshit.

[Psy]

According to a friend of mine in the Air Force, that isn't the right language that they would use over communications. This is bullshit.
But isn't the story about ground crews not pilots? That someone in the ground crew noticed a fighter coming back short a missile then it went up with.

[Zurdito]

nanovapor, for some reason someone posted me a cheque for a substantial amount that was meant for you. can you confirm your bank details just to make sure it's really you?

[Lector Malibu]

According to a friend of mine in the Air Force, that isn't the right language that they would use over communications. This is bullshit.


Indeed! This is like that poser that went on youtube saying he was a war veteran of the war in Iraq and how he was given all these horrible orders and how he was against the war. When it came out in the wash and investigation was done on him, turns out he never served!

[BIG BROTHER]

Not really. People making random, anonymous comments on blogs are not exactly the sanest, most reliable commentators on 9/11.

I know, I know is most likely just a lie.

[KurtFF8]

I would hardly consider prisonplanet as a reliable source for this subject.

[bootleg42]

I would hardly consider prisonplanet as a reliable source for this subject.

I agree. prisonplanet is a terrible source. It's run by the right-wing free-market libertarians and people like Alex Jones who in the past has actually been caught (even by some in his own crowd) making up information and sources.

Places like infowars and prisonplanet are horrible for info.

This is BULLSHIT. It will take years before many factions of the left recover from this whole love affair of the whole 9/11 conspiracy crowd. Shit.

[Luís Henrique]

And if this was true, it would only prove that the Air Force's reaction to the attack was not at all completely inactive... so?

Luís Henrique

[RNK]

I doubt the validity of the claim mainly based on the wreckage...

As stated earlier air-to-air missiles carry relatively small warheads, because they don't really need anything more; most planes are unarmoured and very fragile things.

In any case, I'm sure most of us have atleast accidently spotted footage of planes being shot down by missiles before, on the History channel, youtube, etc; the damage done to the plane is extensive and those are military planes.

What would happen if a civil airliner the size of Flight 93 were hit by a missile? Well, first of all, the plane would immediately experience explosive decompression and more than likely disintigrate right there in the air, raining down to earth in millions of pieces over dozens if not hundreds of square miles.

But the crash site is small enough to fit, mainly, in a small hole in the middle of a farm field. And it would be next to impossible to "cover up" millions of pieces of debris raining down over a huge area, considering the media was storming the site within hours.

[Psy]

I doubt the validity of the claim mainly based on the wreckage...

As stated earlier air-to-air missiles carry relatively small warheads, because they don't really need anything more; most planes are unarmoured and very fragile things.

In any case, I'm sure most of us have atleast accidently spotted footage of planes being shot down by missiles before, on the History channel, youtube, etc; the damage done to the plane is extensive and those are military planes.

What would happen if a civil airliner the size of Flight 93 were hit by a missile? Well, first of all, the plane would immediately experience explosive decompression and more than likely disintigrate right there in the air, raining down to earth in millions of pieces over dozens if not hundreds of square miles.

But the crash site is small enough to fit, mainly, in a small hole in the middle of a farm field. And it would be next to impossible to "cover up" millions of pieces of debris raining down over a huge area, considering the media was storming the site within hours.
Explosive decompression is a hollywood myth as the difference in pressure is not that great. Also airliners actually stand better from air to air missiles due to their massive size, also only close air support actually has armour, the average fighter jet has zero armour like a airliner.

Take the Korean Airliner the USSR shot down in 1983, the black box showed the pilots didn't even notice missile going off in the tail of the airliner and the airliner simply spiralled into the water.

[jake williams]

Yeah, well, people you talk to in person, in the course of your life, then, are just random commentators, but face-to-face, instead of through computers.
Um, no, because people who comment about 9/11 conspiracy theories (and whatever actually happened - and whatever you think of the term - that's what this refers to) are not a random, representative sample of the general population. Nor are the people whom I personally happen to talk to face-to-face, but that's sort of a separate question. Point is it's a biased sample - biased against validity, never mind it being an expert opinion, which elitist as it can be made to be, is at least initially more valid.

[ckaihatsu]

Um, no, because people who comment about 9/11 conspiracy theories (and whatever actually happened - and whatever you think of the term - that's what this refers to) are not a random, representative sample of the general population.


Okay, jammoe, so here you're saying that people who comment about 9/11 conspiracy theories -- hypotheses -- are a *subset* of the general population, and are not a random sampling, or representative sampling, of the general population. Got it. I agree.



Nor are the people whom I personally happen to talk to face-to-face, but that's sort of a separate question.


Okay, and this is probably true for any given person -- we all have our own particular subsets of the population that we interact with -- again, not a representative sample of the general population.



Point is it's a biased sample - biased against validity,


So now you're saying that the group of 9/11 researchers is *biased against validity* -- ? You're basically making a contention that summarily discredits them. Just because you say something doesn't make it so.



never mind it being an expert opinion,


So now you're letting off a bit and admitting that 9/11 researchers have some information on their side, thereby making them experts.



which elitist as it can be made to be, is at least initially more valid.


And finally here you're saying that 9/11 researchers are somehow "elitist", but then you're contradicting yourself from before and here you're saying that "initially* the researchers contentions are "more valid" (than what?).

Maybe you want to take a moment here to gather your thoughts together and say what you want to say a little more clearly...?

[jake williams]

Maybe you want to take a moment here to gather your thoughts together and say what you want to say a little more clearly...?
Perhaps, because you completely misunderstood me. Maybe it was the trying to squeeze a lot into one sentence.


So now you're saying that the group of 9/11 researchers is *biased against validity* -- ? You're basically making a contention that summarily discredits them. Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
Something doesn't become true because I say so, no. I don't want to call a bunch of bored middle-aged men (and this is basically the demographic) who want to get really angry at the Government coming to take their Freedoms "9/11 researchers", but alright. The fact is that if you look at their methods and their claims then they're obviously incorrect, that's the point. I could elaborate a lot on why but I didn't think I needed to.


So now you're letting off a bit and admitting that 9/11 researchers have some information on their side, thereby making them experts.
Um, no, I mean they're certainly not experts. They have no information on their side, but what I mean is they're not mechanical engineers, or actual governmental employees, or anything else that would give them special, relevant knowledge.


And finally here you're saying that 9/11 researchers are somehow "elitist", but then you're contradicting yourself from before and here you're saying that "initially* the researchers contentions are "more valid" (than what?).
You really don't speak English, or understand relative clauses. I mean the idea of reliance on "expert opinion" can become elitist and used to manipulate the working class, but in fact it's a valid principle and by definition expert opinion is generally more valid and correct. The "researchers'" contentions have about zero validity - I was talking about hypothetical experts, who haven't really shown up.


A question - how many 9/11 conspiracy theorists were actually downtown Manhattan the day of? How many of them are actually living in Kansas and have never been to New York and never want to be and really have no idea what went down and just like to make up theories from afar?

[Luís Henrique]

Take the Korean Airliner the USSR shot down in 1983, the black box showed the pilots didn't even notice missile going off in the tail of the airliner and the airliner simply spiralled into the water.

Yes, and if it had hit the ground, instead of water, the impact mark would be distinctly that of a plane hitting its nose into earth, not its belly.

If Flight 93 had been hit by fighters, the same would likely apply.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

The fact is that if you look at their methods and their claims then they're obviously incorrect, that's the point. I could elaborate a lot on why but I didn't think I needed to.


Well, again, just because you say that "they're obviously incorrect" doesn't make it so. You don't need to elaborate. *You're* the one who's avoiding evidence. Why don't you pick through these on your own:

THE 40 TOP REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL 9-11 ARGUMENT:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/whole-9-11-t70635/index.html?p=1121498#post1121498



Um, no, I mean they're certainly not experts. They have no information on their side, but what I mean is they're not mechanical engineers, or actual governmental employees, or anything else that would give them special, relevant knowledge.


Take a look at ae911truth.org -- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.



The "researchers'" contentions have about zero validity


Your contentions have about zero resonance.



A question - how many 9/11 conspiracy theorists were actually downtown Manhattan the day of? How many of them are actually living in Kansas and have never been to New York and never want to be and really have no idea what went down and just like to make up theories from afar?


So now you're saying that only witnesses to an event can legitimately use science to arrive at conclusions?