Full Version: Witness To Order To Shoot Down Ua 93
QUOTE (bill @ Apr 7 2009, 09:14 PM) 
just wondering why this is in Lobby?
Edit: also, i only see a black screen. Is this just my computer or is there suppose to be a video?
I thought this was interesting up until the point when she said she saw some mans spirit came out of some guys body 
Im listening now... its an mp3, right click and save target as....
ok.. i just got done listening. Maybe i missed it, but where does she specifically confirm UA93 was shot down? She specifically says she never heard any confirmation of the shoot down. All she was a part of was a meeting of the shoot down order. The govt does not deny that the order was given to shoot down UA93.
i see alex jones is now running this.....
much like this 'ultima1' cat running around the internet pretending to be ex-nsa or whatever, something about this stinks. bad.
QUOTE
A person using the pseudonym Elizabeth Nelson told The Project Camelot website that she personally heard officials agree on the order to shoot down Flight 93.
much like this 'ultima1' cat running around the internet pretending to be ex-nsa or whatever, something about this stinks. bad.
Consider this: (please correct me if I have made mistakes)
1. Remote control of aircraft has been possible for 30+ years.
2. You rarely hear about hijackings, if ever.
3. The flight manifests did not contain the names of hijackers.
4. The "hijackers" couldn't fly.
5. The story goes that they were training to get licenses. Licenses? For what? To gain access to the cockpit?
6. Hijacks do not have to be reported by radio. I understand a simple dialing of a certain frequency alerts FAA.
7. The DNA record did not contain hijackers' DNA.
8. 6 of 8 pilots were ex-military and would not have given up their seats.
9. Remote control automatically disables radio and transponder.
10. Flights were short passengers. This in itself is suspect, but there's a very good reason.
11. Cell phones don't work on planes.
12. Flight 93 was the final act.
Narrative supporting a shoot down.....
They had to shoot the flight down so they would have a convenient DNA database to support other sites' victims should the need arise. They landed the four flights, off loaded the passengers into one flight (93) and sent it back up to be shot down. Flight 93 may have even been loaded with explosives to make sure the debris field looked like ground zero--finely shredded. This way they have DNA for the Pentagon site and WTC site if they need it to make their case. Little or no plane debris found at Pentagon and yet DNA supposedly found there, even though it was hot enough to vaporize titanium?
The passengers taking over flight 93 is absurd. They could have flown the plane remotely no matter what was being done by pilots or hijackers or heroic passengers intent on saving the White House. They did shoot it down--- for the DNA--- And to jump start the HERO fantasy.
Look at the results. Predictable.
Flight 93 and the rest of the gory Hollywood script worked like a charm. It was sufficiently large and spectacular to thoroughly confuse the masses for the required amount of time. It got Halliburton, Blackwater and all the rest a first class seat into the cash stratosphere. Millions are chump change in the era of trillions.
Pilots, please clear up the discrepancies in my analysis. Thank you.
P.S. Don't military folks wear dog tags? Wouldn't they survive any crash? Were any found?
1. Remote control of aircraft has been possible for 30+ years.
2. You rarely hear about hijackings, if ever.
3. The flight manifests did not contain the names of hijackers.
4. The "hijackers" couldn't fly.
5. The story goes that they were training to get licenses. Licenses? For what? To gain access to the cockpit?
6. Hijacks do not have to be reported by radio. I understand a simple dialing of a certain frequency alerts FAA.
7. The DNA record did not contain hijackers' DNA.
8. 6 of 8 pilots were ex-military and would not have given up their seats.
9. Remote control automatically disables radio and transponder.
10. Flights were short passengers. This in itself is suspect, but there's a very good reason.
11. Cell phones don't work on planes.
12. Flight 93 was the final act.
Narrative supporting a shoot down.....
They had to shoot the flight down so they would have a convenient DNA database to support other sites' victims should the need arise. They landed the four flights, off loaded the passengers into one flight (93) and sent it back up to be shot down. Flight 93 may have even been loaded with explosives to make sure the debris field looked like ground zero--finely shredded. This way they have DNA for the Pentagon site and WTC site if they need it to make their case. Little or no plane debris found at Pentagon and yet DNA supposedly found there, even though it was hot enough to vaporize titanium?
The passengers taking over flight 93 is absurd. They could have flown the plane remotely no matter what was being done by pilots or hijackers or heroic passengers intent on saving the White House. They did shoot it down--- for the DNA--- And to jump start the HERO fantasy.
Look at the results. Predictable.
Flight 93 and the rest of the gory Hollywood script worked like a charm. It was sufficiently large and spectacular to thoroughly confuse the masses for the required amount of time. It got Halliburton, Blackwater and all the rest a first class seat into the cash stratosphere. Millions are chump change in the era of trillions.
Pilots, please clear up the discrepancies in my analysis. Thank you.
P.S. Don't military folks wear dog tags? Wouldn't they survive any crash? Were any found?
QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 8 2009, 08:55 PM)
Consider this: (please correct me if I have made mistakes)
1. Remote control of aircraft has been possible for 30+ years.
2. You rarely hear about hijackings, if ever.
3. The flight manifests did not contain the names of hijackers.
4. The "hijackers" couldn't fly.
5. The story goes that they were training to get licenses. Licenses? For what? To gain access to the cockpit?
6. Hijacks do not have to be reported by radio. I understand a simple dialing of a certain frequency alerts FAA.
7. The DNA record did not contain hijackers' DNA.
8. 6 of 8 pilots were ex-military and would not have given up their seats.
9. Remote control automatically disables radio and transponder.
10. Flights were short passengers. This in itself is suspect, but there's a very good reason.
11. Cell phones don't work on planes.
12. Flight 93 was the final act.
1. Remote control of aircraft has been possible for 30+ years.
2. You rarely hear about hijackings, if ever.
3. The flight manifests did not contain the names of hijackers.
4. The "hijackers" couldn't fly.
5. The story goes that they were training to get licenses. Licenses? For what? To gain access to the cockpit?
6. Hijacks do not have to be reported by radio. I understand a simple dialing of a certain frequency alerts FAA.
7. The DNA record did not contain hijackers' DNA.
8. 6 of 8 pilots were ex-military and would not have given up their seats.
9. Remote control automatically disables radio and transponder.
10. Flights were short passengers. This in itself is suspect, but there's a very good reason.
11. Cell phones don't work on planes.
12. Flight 93 was the final act.
Nothing of what you have said confirms a "shoot down". Nothing in the OP recording confirms a"shoot down".
Everything else you have posted is pure speculation.
Let me make one thing very clear. The reason "debunkers" make excuses to never debate P4T... is because we deal in facts.
Please, if you want to bring this speculation here... expect it to be debunked.. as we are the real debunkers... of the govt story.. of everything.
Those who call themselves "debunkers" are nothing but parrots of the govt story.
QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Apr 9 2009, 12:08 AM)
i see alex jones is now running this.....
much like this 'ultima1' cat running around the internet pretending to be ex-nsa or whatever, something about this stinks. bad.
much like this 'ultima1' cat running around the internet pretending to be ex-nsa or whatever, something about this stinks. bad.
i agree. total disinfo for the gullible and unresearched.
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 7 2009, 02:40 PM)
i agree. total disinfo for the gullible and unresearched.
yeah someone was caught off guard with the recent shanksville revelations.....
i noticed to date that not one duhbunker has taken on my claims other than to point out i'm not a journalist who took college writinig courses..........
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.