IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was There An Actual Hijacking Of Ua93?

paulmichael
post Jan 26 2014, 06:49 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



You may have taken notice that I tend to not group flight UA93 in with the other three 9/11 flights.

As you may well know, the story of flight 93 differs from the rest (per the official government line) inasmuch as it did not strike any target.

I believe that it is a definite possibility that there was an actual hijacking of flight 93 (made possible by a lot of accommodation and assistance from the government and possibly by UA, itself) so as to make the other three flights appear to be cases of genuine hijackings.

Rather than have the hijackers wimp out and return control of UA93's plane to the pilots having failed to go on to dive bomb and crash into a target (I heard that the hijackers made an announcement to the passengers that they were returning to the airport), the powers-that-be decided that it would behoove them to liquidate that flight 93.

Just an idea... just a possibility.

Aside from what I just wrote, I feel that UA93 poses more of a mystery than the other three flights.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 26 2014, 08:12 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 26 2014, 11:49 AM) *
You may have taken notice that I tend to not group flight UA93 in with the other three 9/11 flights.

As you may well know, the story of flight 93 differs from the rest (per the official government line) inasmuch as it did not strike any target.

I believe that it is a definite possibility that there was an actual hijacking of flight 93 (made possible by a lot of accommodation and assistance from the government and possibly by UA, itself) so as to make the other three flights appear to be cases of genuine hijackings.

Rather than have the hijackers wimp out and return control of UA93's plane to the pilots having failed to go on to dive bomb and crash into a target (I heard that the hijackers made an announcement to the passengers that they were returning to the airport), the powers-that-be decided that it would behoove them to liquidate that flight 93.

Just an idea... just a possibility.

Aside from what I just wrote, I feel that UA93 poses more of a mystery than the other three flights.

P.M.



They also said this in AA11 in fact on AA11 it was a b.houck i think who said they had heara threat like "return or i kill you"

Personally i think if we look at the radio announcements, it was designed to be confusion and implication, there was never a need to say "sit down be quiet" or "we have some planes" this was unnecessary. I think the only use they served is a extra proof the hijackings were linked not independent. And all flights were remote controlled, the passengers and crew being informed a hijack scenario would be played out as they went, as part of a security exercise. As such all went well until the planes did not respond, then one plane-93 somehow deviate from the course piloted, the controllers realise that they are possibly losing control. There are two options, let the plane land/crash land and some survivors walk away saying, hijackers? no, it was an exercise we were told. Or shoot it to oblivion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 26 2014, 09:47 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 26 2014, 08:12 AM) *
They also said this in AA11 in fact on AA11 it was a b.houck i think who said they had heara threat like "return or i kill you"

Personally i think if we look at the radio announcements, it was designed to be confusion and implication, there was never a need to say "sit down be quiet" or "we have some planes" this was unnecessary. I think the only use they served is a extra proof the hijackings were linked not independent. And all flights were remote controlled, the passengers and crew being informed a hijack scenario would be played out as they went, as part of a security exercise. As such all went well until the planes did not respond, then one plane-93 somehow deviate from the course piloted, the controllers realise that they are possibly losing control. There are two options, let the plane land/crash land and some survivors walk away saying, hijackers? no, it was an exercise we were told. Or shoot it to oblivion


What you have presented is definitely plausible and has great merit, I must admit.

However, as stated in another recent post of mine, I have much reason to believe that the crew and passenger rosters for at least flights AA11, AA77, and UA175 were for the most part fictitious if not entirely fictitious, and, so, I believe those three flights (that is, the "original versions") were fictitious as well.

For weeks, after T.V. reverted to normal broadcasting after non-stop coverage of 9/11, Oprah dedicated each and every daily show to the subject of 9/11.

Fairly early on, Oprah had as guests several people purporting to have been on the ground and to have received inflight calls from relatives aboard UA93. For weeks and weeks, Oprah had no one who purported to have received inflight calls from any of the other flights until she had a non-credible person who attested to having received such a call.

Maybe, those telephone calls from UA93 were genuine (except, maybe the "let's roll" call). Maybe the hijacking of UA93 was genuine, and if it was...

This begs the question: how did the hijackers pull off gaining control of the plane with just box cutters? Did someone slip a gun or a body bomb to them? Did someone plant something in the trash pail of the plane's lavatory? Was it someone disguised as a cabin cleaner, a baggage handler, a jetway operator, or a caterer pushing a food and beverage cart on board? Could it have been a mechanic in the maintenance department who planted something on board? Or maybe it was someone in even greater "plain sight" like a security office who conducted some kind of pre-flight walk-through of the cabin unchallenged.

You know, the 9/11 Commission was supposed to investigate the government's failings regarding 9/11. The first thing that should have come into the Commissioners' minds was the possibility that the "hijackings" were facilitated by more than mere box cutters, and they should have interviewed EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY who had anything to do with the 9/11 flights especially security screeners. But, if at least three of those flights were fictitious, then, of course, there would be no one to interrogate who were involved with those "flights." AND THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD NOT WANT TO LOOK INCONSISTENT BY PURSUING THE MATTER FURTHER WITH FLIGHT 93.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albemarle
post Jan 26 2014, 12:12 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 6-March 11
Member No.: 5,708



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 26 2014, 01:02 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



My opinion for what it is worth (0-2cents) is still the same as the day it happened. And that is that the Capitol building was the most likely target. That would help convince Congress to support the war. WTC7 was not noteworthy to most people in the USA. Yes it may have held some secrets that they wanted to destroy but I think they figured the towers coming down gave them enough cover for a CD of 7 also. If you were paying attention to the live coverage that day, it was obvious that they were going to CD it even before it came down so nice and pretty. After all, they did get away with it even though no plane hit it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 26 2014, 06:04 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



My confusion remains due to the calls, not that they were, but what was said. Did you know guns were reported on 11,175,and 93. So why say that in a fake call? Did those people exist? Yes. It is not impossible to create lies of lives but it certainly expands the difficulty. My current hypothesis is these calls were real according to scripts. We know hijack scenarios were happening and in fact the noraad tapes have a segment around the FIRST problem where one of them says "i never saw so much real world stuff during an exercise" except, only 1 plane has been told to noraad. So much stuff does not apply to a single plane. Anyway, they also do say IS this real world or not. If the war games were of a attack from say russia, a plane hijack is not likely to be confused as part of the scenario.

Who else was on other planes as a coordinator? Lewin was a dab hand at hijack scenarios and may have been controlling the scenario on AALL AND oNG/Sweeney are so calm and calling in because they have no real fear. The planes have similar scripts. Designed by the plotters to incriminate the patsies but to Lewin and each planes coordinator aboard, to look like a scenario to play. Only at the return to airport stage do they realise they cannot, things are going wrong (aa11's return or i kill you! comment may have been Lewin thinking the pilots were in on this and taking them somewhere for something nefarious) But they cannot. Now communications are cut. Sweeney / Ong calls are hijacked and looped from the start (plausible from Ongs) not checked sweeneys yet.
And then the planes crash.

93 as far as i know was the one that lost radar lock, where did it go? was there people of importance on board that were wanted kidnapped? I havent done a passenger check yet so i dont know, i do think that it was excessive risk to fake victims. But i am early in my research so i can't say i unequivocally think x y z is the case
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 27 2014, 07:07 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



'With the help of a flight attendant sitting next to him, [Todd] Beamer details the numbers of
passengers and crew on the plane. He says the hijackers have divided the passengers into two
groups, with ten of them in first class at the front of the plane, and 27 in the back.
...
A curtain has been closed separating first class from the coach section of the plane.'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...=lisa_jefferson


'When terrorists took over their plane, Linda [Gronlund] called her sister to express her love,
give her the combination to her safe and say good-bye.'


~ http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/linda-gronlund.htm

'...FBI Agent [REDACTED] had come to [Elsa] STRONG's house and taken the cassette tape from her answering machine because GRONLUND had left a message...that the plane she was on was being hijacked.'

~ http://www.911myths.com/images/5/5f/Team7_...osephDeLuca.pdf

Imo, Gronlund was surely among the handpicked '27' mostly meek passengers aboard the airborne plane.



These however, were probably among the 'ten' back at EWR:

'The entire call lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Lyzbeth [Glick] could not hear
any unusual sounds in the background of the call and the connection was extremely clear, "as if
he [husband Jeremy Glick] was calling from the next room
."

~ http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Team7_...ocs-Packet4.pdf



'[GTE Airfone customer service Representative/Verizone Airfone supervisor Lisa] JEFFERSON noted
that the [Todd Beamer] call had an unusually low amount of background noise.'


~ http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-F...a-jefferson.pdf



'Jack Grandcolas later says, “She sounded calm.” He describes, “There is absolutely no background
noise on her message
. You can’t hear people screaming or yelling or crying. It’s very calm, the
whole cabin, the background, there’s really very little sound.”'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...k_grandcolas__1

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 27 2014, 12:16 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



Yeah thanks Poppy that seems to be a theme common through all the phone calls on any of the flights. No screaming, no static (except on AA11 at one point it sounds like a mute button has been pressed or an interjection on the line-Ong call around the what seat are you in questioning)
But no call i have yet heard even has a tremble in their voice, they all seem quite blasè. like a boring weather report is being discussed.

Only at the end. On AA11 as we are told (no tape) did Sweeney become hysterical and scream and Ong said Oh my god oh my god and was cut off.
Except Ong was severed i believe appx 50 s BEFORE impact.

But what's to scream about, the seats where they are are not going to be showing them aiming for anything different to what they could moments before, by the time they can potentially see anything, they will be embedded in the tower anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 27 2014, 09:26 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 27 2014, 05:16 PM) *
Only at the end. On AA11 as we are told (no tape) did Sweeney become hysterical and scream...


I must point out, that this oft reported claim is disputed:

'Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep
breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic."

Those were the last words Woodward heard.'


~ http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132095&page=2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 28 2014, 05:28 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 27 2014, 12:16 PM) *
But no call i have yet heard even has a tremble in their voice, they all seem quite blasè. like a boring weather report is being discussed.


I have heard such characterization of the alleged 9/11 inflight calls on a number of occasions.

Such characterizations bolster my supposition that "audio avatars" were used to create those calls. See my prior post in the Alternative Theories subforum entitled: Did The Tapping Of All Phone Calls Include Harvesting Of Voice Samples..., for impersonation of 9/11 inflight phone calls?"

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 28 2014, 05:46 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 27 2014, 07:07 AM) *


poppyburner, here you have one of the several photos that you have posted.

I make no claim that this photo has been falsified in any way. Ditto for the other photos in your prior reply.

What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, a photo of person A could have been halfway morphed to a photo of person B, then a photo of person C could have been halfway morphed to a photo of person D, then those two halfway morphings could have been halfway morphed together to create the final photo of an alleged "hijacker." The process could have been repeated with pictures of real people E, F, G through person Z and beyond to come up with the remaining photos of the other alleged "hijackers."

WHO KNOWS WHAT PHOTOS ARE GENUINE? Who knows what photos are not?

There are lots of bogus photos on the net that are the products of Photoshop and other image manipulation software.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 28 2014, 07:02 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 02:26 AM) *
I must point out, that this oft reported claim is disputed:

'Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep
breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic."

Those were the last words Woodward heard.'


~ http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132095&page=2



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 28 2014, 11:37 AM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



paulmichael,

The photo portraits in my earlier post, are not of the alleged hijackers, but the Airfone
distress-calling victims, who were booked for UAL 93.

There's no way that the pathetic framing of alleged Flight 93 hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah,
in this unsubstantiated propaganda video, is a CGI.

Nor his silent, so-named "martyrdom video"; featuring the equally innocent Mohamed Atta.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 28 2014, 12:03 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 11:37 AM) *
paulmichael,

The photo portraits in my earlier post, are not of the alleged hijackers, but the Airfone
distress-calling victims, who were booked for UAL 93.


poppyburner, please go back to the post of mine on which you are commenting, and review it carefully.

I never indicated that the photos in question (meaning the ones in your earlier post) were of hijackers.

I did, in another thread in another forum, posit that the crew and passenger lists for the 9/11 "flights" may have been falsified in whole or in part.

QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 28 2014, 11:37 AM) *
There's no way that the pathetic framing of alleged Flight 93 hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah,
in this unsubstantiated propaganda video, is a CGI.

Nor his silent, so-named "martyrdom video"; featuring the equally innocent Mohamed Atta.


Again, go back to my reply above and you will see that I stated "MOST, IF NOT ALL photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers..."

I hope that this clarifies things.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 77
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 28 2014, 07:32 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM) *
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.


Hmmm, would you recommend the renaming of this website to PilotsReferringEveryoneToTheGovernmentForTruth.org?

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 29 2014, 01:03 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 06:12 PM) *
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.



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 29 2014, 01:07 AM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 28 2014, 05:03 PM) *
I never indicated that the photos in question (meaning the ones in your earlier post) were of hijackers.


'poppyburner, here you[sic] have one of the several photos that you have posted.
...
What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...'


What was I thinking? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Again, go back to my reply above and you will see that I stated "MOST, IF NOT ALL photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers..."


Yes; I'm saying: not all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 29 2014, 01:32 AM
Post #19





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 28 2014, 11:12 PM) *
...finding possible explanations is not the objective , it is finding the most plausible one.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 29 2014, 07:28 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 415
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 29 2014, 01:07 AM) *
'poppyburner, here you[sic] have one of the several photos that you have posted.
...
What I will say is that for each of most, if not all, photos of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...'


What was I thinking? rolleyes.gif



Yes; I'm saying: not all.


OK, while I still maintain that there was no indication in my reply post #11 that the photos that you posted were of hijackers, I will admit that the overall presentation of my reply #11 could have been better to prevent any misinterpretation.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2017 - 04:59 PM