Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

I'll give you credit for being consistent on your idea that the AA77 passengers were disembarked and murdered.

I guess that also applies to the Flight 93 passengers who made calls? They were disembarked somewhere and murdered as well?

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

I'll give you credit for being consistent on your idea that the AA77 passengers were disembarked and murdered.

I guess that also applies to the Flight 93 passengers who made calls? They were disembarked somewhere and murdered as well?

---

That's a theory. These parts of the discussion are highly speculative, but we do know that the calls could not have been made at those altitudes and speeds as officially claimed with the released evidence of flight path and family member's caller ID. So the next logical conclusion is how they were made, and that suggests, given the clarity of the recordings, and the duration, that they must have been on the ground. And that the only way the family members would have read from a script is likely if they were pressured.

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

I'll give you credit for being consistent on your idea that the AA77 passengers were disembarked and murdered.

I guess that also applies to the Flight 93 passengers who made calls? They were disembarked somewhere and murdered as well?

---

That's a theory. These parts of the discussion are highly speculative, but we do know that the calls could not have been made at those altitudes and speeds as officially claimed with the released evidence of flight path and family member's caller ID. So the next logical conclusion is how they were made, and that suggests, given the clarity of the recordings, and the duration, that they must have been on the ground. And that the only way the family members would have read from a script is likely if they were pressured.

---

---

Sea Speed said:

---

This guys arguments are like the God of the gaps arguments many folks make about natural occurrences that religion can't explain, but instead of God, it is the government.

---

titan said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I tried to skim this thread and catch up. I didn't see anyone talking about the plane in Pennsylvania.

Where do I land on the spectrum of conspiracy theory kookery if I think the towers and pentagon were legit but United 93 was shot down?

---

TBH, that would seem at least passably reasonable if you could show how what was presented was set up.

The govt would have overwhelming and even sympathetic understandable motive to put a different face on a straight shoot down for security. A shoot down which would be entirely justified. And probably the kind of thing the British Empire would both do, and then construct an alternative story for.

But there seems nothing especially implausible about what happened, and the fact that our fighter deployments were too lax over the homeland area in peactimes is too believable. Remember, a plane even penetrated Moscow air space and landed there in Cold War era Soviet Union. If they can be caught napping on home turf in the Cold War, we definitely could be and were in the stone dry near full peace of the end of the 20th C.

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

titan said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I tried to skim this thread and catch up. I didn't see anyone talking about the plane in Pennsylvania.

Where do I land on the spectrum of conspiracy theory kookery if I think the towers and pentagon were legit but United 93 was shot down?

---

TBH, that would seem at least passably reasonable if you could show how what was presented was set up.

The govt would have overwhelming and even sympathetic understandable motive to put a different face on a straight shoot down for security. A shoot down which would be entirely justified. And probably the kind of thing the British Empire would both do, and then construct an alternative story for.

But there seems nothing especially implausible about what happened, and the fact that our fighter deployments were too lax over the homeland area in peactimes is too believable. Remember, a plane even penetrated Moscow air space and landed there in Cold War era Soviet Union. If they can be caught napping on home turf in the Cold War, we definitely could be and were in the stone dry near full peace of the end of the 20th C.

---

I will take this opportunity to reiterate that I have not taken the time to independently verify this, but I was told the debris from U93 was scattered, implying it blew up mid air. If I'm way off base here I'm happy to read up on it and change my mind.

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

FLT 93 terrorists were tasked to hit White House ~some Capitol bldg. No evidence exists of weakening any Capitol structure required for professional demolition assist or intricate job of explosives removal due to those terrorist's task failure.

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

So you think our government slaughtered all those passengers?


Or are they kept on a island where they will never be found?

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Yet they did. Certainly not possible at all times or for very long, but they occurred. Why would they lie about that? What purpose would it serve? If it wasn't possible, why state they did?

---

1 hr 38 mins in

In 2003 there was an attempt to replicate the calls in flight. They would not work at 8000 feet and above, well below cruising altitude. Furthermore, the speed of the aircraft would cause the calls to constantly drop even if they were able to maintain the original signal at cruising altitudes.

---

So the old in-plane phones are not a reasonable explanation for how the calls were made?

---

Not when we have caller ID from the receivers of the calls from family members on the ground that confirmed it was made by their number, and the timestamps align with the alleged altitude being 30,000 feet. The video goes into detail about this.

---

So you think all of those calls from the various flights were faked?

---

Placed under duress on the ground after the planes had been swapped, which is consistent with the drafted military plan called Operation Northwoods which went to the highest levels of the government for approval, but was ultimately not approved by Kennedy.

---

So you think our government slaughtered all those passengers?


Or are they kept on a island where they will never be found?

---

New World Ag said:

---

I did. It then goes into a laughably complex theory that the planes were switched and the commercial flights landed. You're just adding hundreds, if not thousands, of people Into the conspiracy that have magically stayed silent.

The only two confirmed cell phone calls came from FA CeeCee Lyles and passenger Edward Felt (who was in the rear lav). Both were are 9:58, at which time the plane was at 5000 ft before going up to 10,000 ft and then down to the ground.

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

President Bush & Cheney should have negotiated a better parts in the script.
Goofball #1 leader: Go to Florida and read book to children. Then use AF1 to hide.
Goofball #2 leader: go to the tunnels, claim authority. Give orders to shoot down all the passenger planes and airstrikes anywhere in the ME.

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

titan said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I tried to skim this thread and catch up. I didn't see anyone talking about the plane in Pennsylvania.

Where do I land on the spectrum of conspiracy theory kookery if I think the towers and pentagon were legit but United 93 was shot down?

---

TBH, that would seem at least passably reasonable if you could show how what was presented was set up.

The govt would have overwhelming and even sympathetic understandable motive to put a different face on a straight shoot down for security. A shoot down which would be entirely justified. And probably the kind of thing the British Empire would both do, and then construct an alternative story for.

But there seems nothing especially implausible about what happened, and the fact that our fighter deployments were too lax over the homeland area in peactimes is too believable. Remember, a plane even penetrated Moscow air space and landed there in Cold War era Soviet Union. If they can be caught napping on home turf in the Cold War, we definitely could be and were in the stone dry near full peace of the end of the 20th C.

---

I will take this opportunity to reiterate that I have not taken the time to independently verify this, but I was told the debris from U93 was scattered, implying it blew up mid air. If I'm way off base here I'm happy to read up on it and change my mind.

---

titan said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

titan said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I tried to skim this thread and catch up. I didn't see anyone talking about the plane in Pennsylvania.

Where do I land on the spectrum of conspiracy theory kookery if I think the towers and pentagon were legit but United 93 was shot down?

---

TBH, that would seem at least passably reasonable if you could show how what was presented was set up.

The govt would have overwhelming and even sympathetic understandable motive to put a different face on a straight shoot down for security. A shoot down which would be entirely justified. And probably the kind of thing the British Empire would both do, and then construct an alternative story for.

But there seems nothing especially implausible about what happened, and the fact that our fighter deployments were too lax over the homeland area in peactimes is too believable. Remember, a plane even penetrated Moscow air space and landed there in Cold War era Soviet Union. If they can be caught napping on home turf in the Cold War, we definitely could be and were in the stone dry near full peace of the end of the 20th C.

---

I will take this opportunity to reiterate that I have not taken the time to independently verify this, but I was told the debris from U93 was scattered, implying it blew up mid air. If I'm way off base here I'm happy to read up on it and change my mind.

---

Yes. There are other arguments against the notion too. But I was just answering your question as I wasn't sure if you were making a pun on your username or were serious, ha. That flight 93 was show down was a rumor you heard even that month. Someone getting into that pursuit and question imo is alot more different than doubting the Twin Towers, and that is what you seemed to be asking. I can't say because never looked into it especially. It always seemed the most clear-cut "happened as it said".

One objection that never rang true is they "would not do it". On the contrary, if they have time is the logiical thing they can do. So it always seemed a different claim.

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

A very short google search later and I find History.com reporting the debris was scattered for 8 miles. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/flight-93

The picture didnt look that wide

---