The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on September 12, 2008, 11:50:04 AM
-
Billy Burnett (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-12-08 11:18 AM
Original message
?. Did the passengers on UA Flight 93 fight hijackers and take the plane down?
Edited on Fri Sep-12-08 11:41 AM by Billy Burnett
I seem to remember the families being allowed to hear FAA tapes and some said that there was no indication of a cockpit struggle.
This was discussed on DU, as I seem to remember.
Am I wrong?
Thanks in advance for any links pointing me in the direction of the facts.
on edit: OK folks, I'm not talking about anything other than the story of the passengers fighting the hijackers in the cockpit and taking the plane down and the FAA cockpit tapes indicating otherwise. Not looking for shoot-down theories or anything else.
Just asking about the families responding AFTER they were allowed to hear the FAA cockpit tapes to the story of the passengers fighting the hijackers and taking the plane down.
Bob Dobbs (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-12-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. It was shot down.
The debris pattern on the ground indicates as much.
Why it was shot down is the real question. Perhaps the remote piloting controls were not working correctly and there was danger the plane could be brought down safely, exposing the busholini inc psyop.
9/11 truthers advance their theories. Too much to post. You gotta read it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3982239
-
Perhaps the remote piloting controls were not working correctly...
:tinfoil: :whatever:
-
The next thread will be all the troofers having a fit that planes DIDN`T scramble and shoot down the hijacked ones.
The one after that will be raging against President Bush for giving the order to shoot down any more planes in the air that were not following the flight plan or had turned off their contact beacons or whatever it is that is tracked by air traffic control.
Wonder how many of these loons post in all of them? :mental:
-
I had to go down to big city yesterday and I did see a couple of "Truthers" on a corner waving their 911 signs, it was flipping hillarious. :rotf: :lmao:
-
I had to go down to big city yesterday and I did see a couple of "Truthers" on a corner waving their 911 signs, it was flipping hillarious. :rotf: :lmao:
Didja see TiT? He would have been the one with the green beret wearing a Navy Cross. :whatever:
-
My personal opinion is that the plane was brought down by the passengers. Even IF it was shot down, I don't care. Better that it go down in an uninhabited field than in a major city, regardless of the reason.
-
IF that plane was brought down with a missile then there wouldn't have been that huge hole in the ground when it hit. That debris field would have been scattered over miles and not over an open field where it hit.
Watch the missiles strike the aircraft and tell ME DUMMIES HOW ALL THE DEBRIS ends up in one open field!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b2aoeS78A)
-
Sebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Again, you're basing that assumption on what you have been told by the Bush Crime Family.
What if the planes were hijacked by means that didn't require human intervention at all?
About 6 months before the 9-11 operation, I recall reading about remote control technology which existed on passenger jet airplanes. The context of the article (which has been entirely scrubbed from existence now, for obvious reasons) :whatever: was that the technology was implemented, ironically enough, so somebody could take over controls of a plane from the ground and fly it, in the event of a hijacking. Of course that's when hijacking was universally interpreted as "temporarily rerouting this flight to Cuba" or whatever.
Many of the so called "hijackers" (as reported by the whore media) were later found to be not dead and not on the planes at all. Maybe NONE of them were? Maybe human hijackers weren't needed? As long as you had a complete override of the controls and the pilots could not get it back, the results would be the same.
Absolutely unfreakinbelievable. :banghead:
-
Sebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Again, you're basing that assumption on what you have been told by the Bush Crime Family.
What if the planes were hijacked by means that didn't require human intervention at all?
About 6 months before the 9-11 operation, I recall reading about remote control technology which existed on passenger jet airplanes. The context of the article (which has been entirely scrubbed from existence now, for obvious reasons) :whatever: was that the technology was implemented, ironically enough, so somebody could take over controls of a plane from the ground and fly it, in the event of a hijacking. Of course that's when hijacking was universally interpreted as "temporarily rerouting this flight to Cuba" or whatever.
Many of the so called "hijackers" (as reported by the whore media) were later found to be not dead and not on the planes at all. Maybe NONE of them were? Maybe human hijackers weren't needed? As long as you had a complete override of the controls and the pilots could not get it back, the results would be the same.
Absolutely unfreakinbelievable. :banghead:
He'll fit right in. I think he's found a home.
-
Sebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Again, you're basing that assumption on what you have been told by the Bush Crime Family.
What if the planes were hijacked by means that didn't require human intervention at all?
About 6 months before the 9-11 operation, I recall reading about remote control technology which existed on passenger jet airplanes. The context of the article (which has been entirely scrubbed from existence now, for obvious reasons) :whatever: was that the technology was implemented, ironically enough, so somebody could take over controls of a plane from the ground and fly it, in the event of a hijacking. Of course that's when hijacking was universally interpreted as "temporarily rerouting this flight to Cuba" or whatever.
Many of the so called "hijackers" (as reported by the whore media) were later found to be not dead and not on the planes at all. Maybe NONE of them were? Maybe human hijackers weren't needed? As long as you had a complete override of the controls and the pilots could not get it back, the results would be the same.
Absolutely unfreakinbelievable. :banghead:
He'll fit right in. I think he's found a home.
We should call him "the illegetimate primitive." Why? Sebastard Doyle. :-)