Conspire`s 9/11 Conspiracies

[Ron Burgundy]

Tony Gambino talks about mob connections to 9/11, JFK, Hollywood, and the Vatican

Interview starts at about 1:10.

[David H]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the bombs planted on the george washington bridge! Four non-arabs arrested during the emergency, then it disappeared from the news

[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to hear more about this. I never really knew what IT was referencing with this line.

[TomE.]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "let's roll" thing, that implies a whole 'nother layer of conspiracy - by the families of the dead - which seems implausible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't both have happened - the "let's roll" call was made, they barreled into the cockpit just as the plane was being shot down? Even if the guys were successful in overthrowing their captors, the chances of them landing the plane with no experience would be slim to none. Knowing this, and given the remote area which 93 (apparently) went down, it seems almost a given the plane was taken down by our side. The "good of the one isn't bigger than the good of the many" thing. I'd heard 93 was headed towards the Sears Tower in Chicago, but a security guard acquaintance of mine was working the RenCen in Detroit on 9-11, and they were told to start evacuating people. If 93 doesn't somehow crash or get shot down on the way to one of these supposed targets, a bunch more people were in danger than were in that plane. It ain't pretty but it makes sense.

[tuq]

You both make good points. Thanks.

I think I was letting my head get wrapped around the whole "landed safely" thing and wasn't addressing the possibility that it got shot down. THAT is a theory I could buy into fairly easily barring evidence to the contrary.

I had to go to BBV4L last night and troll Conspire to get him back here on the flight 93 thing, but he still hasn't delivered on this matter.

[AquaSwing]

There is zero reason to believe that 93 landed safely. I don't think we'll ever know the last 15 minutes of what happened with regard to being shot down or not. Didn't the black box indicate lot of yelling in the cockpit prior to the crash?

I'm inclined to say it was shot down and I think they were justified in doing so. It was well known at that time that three planes had already hit their target and this was on its way to a fourth. Knowing that all onboard were going to die either way, better to take out a giant field than the Capitol/White House or wherever it was headed.

BTW, the Pentagon was a really dumb target seeing that it's one of the stongest buildings ever built.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
The "good of the one isn't bigger than the good of the many" thing. I'd heard 93 was headed towards the Sears Tower in Chicago, but a security guard acquaintance of mine was working the RenCen in Detroit on 9-11, and they were told to start evacuating people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to look at a 93 flight path map and how.

[TomE.]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to look at a 93 flight path map and how.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the final destination of flight 93 was what I was getting at, I would have put more effort into it although I implicitly believe what my security guard friend intimated to me. As it stands, my point was they shot down 93 before it hit its target - wherever that was.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Given reports I've read from eyewitnesses in the area, it seems extremely possible that the jet was shot down, and the "Let's Roll" phone call was used to fabricate a more palatable story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being from the general area and spending time in that direct area many times a year, I can tell you that there were no credible eyewitnesses that have a complete account. The only people that have a full timeline and play by play are, hm, how you say? Ah yes, crazy.

Most of the people in the area looked up at different times and saw different things from different angles and the nuts have put together a story based on inconsistencies. You know, because there are no inconsistencies in the stories of hundres of people scattered over 20 square miles all looking at something from different vantage points, right?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the people in the area looked up at different times and saw different things from different angles and the nuts have put together a story based on inconsistencies. You know, because there are no inconsistencies in the stories of hundres of people scattered over 20 square miles all looking at something from different vantage points, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Not saying that I'd take eyewitness accounts at face value. I'm just saying that the Air Force shooting down the plane WOULD make sense given the chaos at the time, and the govt using the "Let's Roll" phone call to put a better spin on a tragedy would not surprise me in the least.

Remember, this is the govt that fraudulently packaged the Pat Tillman death in an attempt to boost patriotism and enlistment in the armed forces. I'm certainly not naive enough to think they couldn't have fabricated a falsehood in this case also.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Not saying that I'd take eyewitness accounts at face value. I'm just saying that the Air Force shooting down the plane WOULD make sense given the chaos at the time, and the govt using the "Let's Roll" phone call to put a better spin on a tragedy would not surprise me in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, then how about this: are there any eyewitness accounts of other planes in the air chasing that one down? Because it didn't shoot down itself and you think that even though it was probably way the hell up there some people would notice the other ones too. It's possible that a fighter plane at that altitude isn't easily visible from the ground though I suppose.