Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Billy Burnett (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-12-08 11:18 AMOriginal 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 BurnettI 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 AMResponse 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.
Perhaps the remote piloting controls were not working correctly...
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.
Sebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PMResponse to Reply #3637. 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) 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.
QuoteSebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PMResponse to Reply #3637. 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) 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.
Quote from: Carl on September 13, 2008, 05:26:45 AMQuoteSebastian Doyle (430 posts) Fri Sep-12-08 01:19 PMResponse to Reply #3637. 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) 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. He'll fit right in. I think he's found a home.
