Was There An Actual Hijacking Of Ua93? Options

[tumetuestumefais...]

I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

A claim there a B757 crashed (because an arab hijacker pilot steered it into the ground when he "realised the passengers were about to overwhelm" him) at the infamous site east of Shanksville, leaving only a relatively small ~30ft crater with two "wing markings" spanning barely half the B757 wingspan, virtually no wreckage and causing no major fires - although there must have been dozens of thousands lb jetfuel on board according to the gross weight record in the alleged FDR is one of the most implausible conspiracy theories I've ever seen.
It is so implausible also because we positively know from the officially released radar data and from multiple wittness accouints, that there was another, likely small aircraft which disappeared from the radar at the very same place where the alleged "UA93" crashed - see here.

But back to the topic and this thread question:
I would think that if the UAL93/N591UA B757-222 plane didn't crash at the infamous site east of Shanksville - which looks to me very likely from the complex of available evidence (- and on the other hand there is in fact no known plausible hard evidence linking the UAL93/N591UA - which according to the very official BTS record took off at 8:28 - ~14 minutes before the plane which allegedly crashed - to the plane allegedly crashing at the infamous site east of Shanksville) - it was indeed hijacked - but not by the Jarrah et al, but by the US government, meaning - what is known for decades - it is a terrorist entity which is notabene positively known that its military branch planned similar staged terrorist attacks to get war pretext already in 1962 and which was - according to revelation by Italian president and prime minister and results of decades long investigation also extremely likely involved in the most extensive multiplestate-sponsored terrorist operation in history - the Operation Gladio. So to me seems plausible to postulate it was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the "UA93" - if it ever existed - was indeed hijacked in any case.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 29 2014, 10:42 AM

[bmead]

I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

If the most plausible answer is based on what we have by way of evidence. Occams razor says Satam al Suqamis passport was a plant


The hijackers should not all have got in the country
The hijackers should never have all made it onto the planes
The ones who were not on watch lists or expired visas should have had their weapons found
Daniel Lewin should have taken out Atta and Al Omari with Chris. Mello tackling Suqami and the two then using force to take on and defeat the Al Shehris

The planes should like with tests conducted on concrete-Burst into dust rather than slice through steel like a hot knife through butter
The FBI should have employed translators who spoke the language they were translating
The investigative bodies would release their proofs

And of course the most OBVIOUS is, if the terrorist group who denied it and denied it and denied it, and planned this brilliant tactical strike. Wouldn't leave video tapes everywhere, tapes that by chance survive army attacks on the locations and are the main thing left there by sloppy (but geniusly clever) terrorists, then despite the new proof, the terrorists still need torture of mind and body to be made to admit to it.
In the case of Khalid Sheik M. He admits also to TWA 800 yet NTSB say no no he lied

And the evidence says the black boxes WERE recovered
The evidence says Atta asked if his bags were definitely on AA11 indicating he wanted them on (or wanted attention drawn to them) if he wanted them on-to be destroyed- why wasn't he wearing his "death suit" and if he wanted them noticed, it could only be so al qaeda would be blamed, if thats because IT WAS al qaeda, why not admit it?


So- whatever way you look at it, the evidence as it is, says NOT a simple terrorist op. The delving into the lies and omissions says, HELL NO WAY!!!!!1
Conclusion up,down or left or right, don't matter-The Government version is full of more holes than a bullet riddled corpse

[paulmichael]

I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

realitycheck77, do you realize what you are saying?

What you are calling the only plausible 9/11 scenario just happens to be the only one, that I know of, that defies the laws of physics, this not to mention, defying aviation science, aircraft engineering, the art and science of architecture, the art and science of demolitions, and — you want to know — downright common sense.

Downright common sense, at minimum, would raise questions as to why there were so many irregularities from a proper law enforcement perspective, for example and in a nutshell, the lack of anything that vaguely resembled a by-the-book investigation of all things 9/11, this lack also pertaining to the whitewash known as the 9/11 Commission.

But thank you, realitycheck77, for affording me an opportunity to respond in this manner.

P.M.

[amazed!]

I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

I don't find it plausible, for a number of reasons.

No Boeing at Shanksville is one, no Boeing at Pentagon is another, flimsy to NO proof that any airliners were hijacked that day. Cell phone calls as presented were impossible.

[realitycheck77]

Are you investigating, or do we have to present you with one?

When is the result of your investigation going to be produced? It has been 12 years. I hope though that the conclusions you come to will be plausible ones , or rather the most plausible ones given the evidence. Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence -by declaring it false or faked - are conclusions based on ignoring evidence.

[NP1Mike]

Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence -by declaring it false or faked - are conclusions based on ignoring evidence.

"Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence... are conclusions based on ignoring evidence."

Now that is a brilliant statement!


Can you please provide us any solid evidence that there were hijackers in any of the planes?

[realitycheck77]

Realitycheck you should post here more often so we could get a good handle on where your head is at and where you are coming from.

You don't think the planes crashing into the towers had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that they had previously been wired for destruction and were waiting for the excuse of a planes and fires taking them down?

I don't think the towers were previously wired for destruction because if they had been wired with explosives, the structural steel would have been cut by the explosives. Hundreds and hundreds or structural steel columns with angled cuts at each end. I haven't seen any evidence of it at all. It would have to have been there for everyone to see and photograph afterwards. Anyone who contemplated doing it would know it would be there for everyone to see , firefighters , rescue workers ,any of the hundreds of people working on the site for months. A&E for 911 truth say there there wasn't evidence of the steel being cut. What did the explosives do to the steel supports columns of the buildings to make them collapse? Were they just frightened into collapsing?
So I don't think the planes crashing into the towers had anything to do with the fact that the towers didn't have any explosives in them.

[realitycheck77]

"Conclusions arrived at by ignoring evidence... are conclusions based on ignoring evidence."

Now that is a brilliant statement!


Can you please provide us any solid evidence that there were hijackers in any of the planes?

What form would the evidence take? If a plane was hijacked and the hijackers took over the controls and crashed the plane what would the evidence be that it was hijacked?

[amazed!]

What form would the evidence take? If a plane was hijacked and the hijackers took over the controls and crashed the plane what would the evidence be that it was hijacked?

One would think that AT LEAST the passengers who did the hijacking would have been included on the flight manifest.

For some "mysterious" reason, these names were not included therein.

[realitycheck77]

One would think that AT LEAST the passengers who did the hijacking would have been included on the flight manifest.

For some "mysterious" reason, these names were not included therein.

Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!

[onesliceshort]

I think the most plausible explanation for what happened on the planes on 911 was that they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them. There are a lot of other possible explanations that can be constructed from the evidence, or more importantly from removal of evidence by declaring it false or fake, but finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.

Definition of "plausible"

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

I find the OCT the least credible, acceptable or valid. If you gratuitously swallow what you've been fed by the media and the den of liars and warmongering whores that manage them, then yes, I could see how some people would see this scenario as "acceptable". Especially when they are content with only the word of the "powers that be".

they were hijacked by a group of suicide hijackers who then crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon , and one into the ground when they realised the passengers were about to overwhelm them

That's a bit oversimplified, isn't it? Put some meat on the bones there Realitycheck77.

Edit: Sorry for going OT. Maybe Realitycheck77 would like to open a thread himself in the debate section and list the evidence that supports his claims?

[Art]

Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!

If the hijackers were on the planes, why are there no pictures of them boarding the planes from the security cameras?

[poppyburner]

I took that off a interview by fbi of someone, i will find again but of course i guess we should be looking to woodward as the official version on that
So if the interview was not him i suppose it doesn't hold as much water.

Ill post it up if i find it again.

Just found this audio from Woodward's colleague at the time:

"She[Sweeney] started screaming and saying something's wrong and now he's[Woodward's] having trouble. And he thinks he might be disconnected."

9/11 The Lost Tapes full documentary - September 11 2001 NEADS NORAD FAA TAPES
@ 16:09

[bmead]

Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!

So if we have not seen the flight manifests then have you?

So you want evidence- Well provide evidence of building 7-you know the one NIST admitted freefall only when real science refused to be quiet and proved it. Then they said yeah but only 2,25s, even which requires still zero resistance, ie NOTHING underneath what happened then, 1 column went and bashed out a whol clump of the building?

Or, explain maybe how Atta car was found only because after the towers got hit, a man who had an argument with a man that could be on any flight in the world, realised he was arguing with a man that didn't want attention brought to himself, so much so he had driven to a different airport so that logan would not see so many middle eastern men arriving all at once, despite that it would show up anyway, and despite that Atta could never have known what other M/E men may be travelling. But you want the flimsy evidence to be the option you take?

Ok well build that case on unlikely, unrealistic, improbable, and coincidence.
Sounds like solid reasoning

Oh and whilst your at it, i assume in future you agree that in homicide investigations, coroners need only examine a finger nail now, no matter what any audio/visual evidence implies.
Since NIST examined LESS than 0.5% of the available evidence, and actively chose specific parts rather than having an independent series of test conducted on tons of material they chose themsleves what they wanted and ignored the rest.

So as of now if the rest of the world s law enforcement does this with a crime scene, you will be okay if your family get convicted as terrorists and sentenced to death on that same % of evidence yes?

[bmead]

Just found this audio from Woodward's colleague at the time:

"She[Sweeney] started screaming and saying something's wrong and now he's[Woodward's] having trouble. And he thinks he might be disconnected."

9/11 The Lost Tapes full documentary - September 11 2001 NEADS NORAD FAA TAPES
@ 16:09

Thank You Poppy

[amazed!]

Really? Have you seen the flight manifests? They have the names of the alleged hijackers. Are you actually saying a big complicated plan to pretend planes had been hijacked by certain named individuals wouldn't involve the hijackers being on the planes? Or even just their names being on the passenger lists?!

Have I held the originals in my own hands? No.

Have I seen transcripts and copies of them in the media and on the internet? Yes.

The ones first presented did not contain the names of the supposed hijackers.

After that error was pointed out, subsequent copies included the names of the supposed hijackers.

[paulmichael]

I think the most plausible explanation of 93 is it was intended to strike WTC7. Because it was delayed, it was not allowed to hit its intended target. You have to account for the fact that WTC7 was wired for demolition. What was the planned explanation for the collapse of WTC7, if not a jet impact?

Albemarie:

The more that I think about it, the more that I like your take on things better than mine as expressed in the original post here.

I'd like to add — don't you think it odd that when there is a residential fire, the homeowner has no say about what happens to his property once the government takes over, that is, the fire and police departments, yet. of WTC7, Larry Silverstein got to proclaim: "Pull it"?

P.M.