Why Flight 93 Crashed At 10:06am And Not At 10:03am
An excellent essay here.
Basically, 10:06am was the time when a huge seismic spike occurred in the area of the crash, and there was nothing at 10:03am. Moreover, the timing of Jeremy Glick's phone call strongly suggest the passenger revolt started a couple of minutes after 10am, which only leaves about 1 minute for the dramatic showdown between passengers and hijackers that is even described by the commission.
Okay, the 9/11 commission is lying about this (what else is new?). The question is WHY.
According to the commission--"The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission".
Okay, so I certainly don't trust the NTSB in this case, I am not convinced radar is reliable for timing when a plane crashed, the loss of ATC transmission means nothing in this case (actually that is a bit of a joke) and I don't know how infrared satellite data can precisely time a crash.
The time from the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder on the other hand is significant. Either these on board items indicated that the plane crashed at 10:03am or they didn't.
One possibility is that the FDR and CVR didn't say this and the commission is covering up what was recorded in the last three minutes.
However, there is another possibility here.
Perhaps something really did happen to the plane at 10:03am--- perhaps a bomb on board exploded-- that stopped the FDR and the CVR (and this may have given an infrared signal and caused loss of radar signal). If this happened though, what happened at 10:06am to create a huge seismic shock? And how did the plane disappear into a hole? Why didn't it break up in mid-air and spread large debris all over the field near Shanksville?
One way to explain this second possibility is that the hole in Shanksville was made by a second plane, an exploding drone, as I have alluded to here before***. This is also what made the seismic signal at 10:06am. The flight 93 with the passengers may have then exploded in midair and the parts fell into Indian Lake or somewhere else entirely.
Either way, the commission is covering up the truth.
In the one case, the commission is covering up what happened during the last three minutes of flight 93 before it crashed in Shanksville. Most likely this would be that the passengers took back control and were trying to steer the plane safely home.
The other possibility, which I actually favor, is that the commission is covering up that there were two planes involved in the flight 93 incident-- 1) the flight 93 with passengers attacking the hijackers that was bombed or hit by a missile and 2) the flight 93 that was a bomb-laden drone. And the commission, either wittingly or unwittingly (someone obviously would have known but the commissioners themselves may have been oblivious to the details) merged the two planes together.
The big question is WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANE WITH THE PASSENGERS?
The plane that crashed in Shanksville had minimal human remains,and these could have been planted. This is why it seems likely that this plane did not have the passengers.
***A remote possibility is that the crater in Shanksville was a clever fake and the plane that was seen flying erratically right before the explosion simply flew over the crater site that was rigged to blow up and look like an airplane crash. This would be hard to set up precisely, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a witness seeing the plane fly over the crash site, overall is rather complicated and thus seems unlikely.
Basically, 10:06am was the time when a huge seismic spike occurred in the area of the crash, and there was nothing at 10:03am. Moreover, the timing of Jeremy Glick's phone call strongly suggest the passenger revolt started a couple of minutes after 10am, which only leaves about 1 minute for the dramatic showdown between passengers and hijackers that is even described by the commission.
Okay, the 9/11 commission is lying about this (what else is new?). The question is WHY.
According to the commission--"The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission".
Okay, so I certainly don't trust the NTSB in this case, I am not convinced radar is reliable for timing when a plane crashed, the loss of ATC transmission means nothing in this case (actually that is a bit of a joke) and I don't know how infrared satellite data can precisely time a crash.
The time from the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder on the other hand is significant. Either these on board items indicated that the plane crashed at 10:03am or they didn't.
One possibility is that the FDR and CVR didn't say this and the commission is covering up what was recorded in the last three minutes.
However, there is another possibility here.
Perhaps something really did happen to the plane at 10:03am--- perhaps a bomb on board exploded-- that stopped the FDR and the CVR (and this may have given an infrared signal and caused loss of radar signal). If this happened though, what happened at 10:06am to create a huge seismic shock? And how did the plane disappear into a hole? Why didn't it break up in mid-air and spread large debris all over the field near Shanksville?
One way to explain this second possibility is that the hole in Shanksville was made by a second plane, an exploding drone, as I have alluded to here before***. This is also what made the seismic signal at 10:06am. The flight 93 with the passengers may have then exploded in midair and the parts fell into Indian Lake or somewhere else entirely.
Either way, the commission is covering up the truth.
In the one case, the commission is covering up what happened during the last three minutes of flight 93 before it crashed in Shanksville. Most likely this would be that the passengers took back control and were trying to steer the plane safely home.
The other possibility, which I actually favor, is that the commission is covering up that there were two planes involved in the flight 93 incident-- 1) the flight 93 with passengers attacking the hijackers that was bombed or hit by a missile and 2) the flight 93 that was a bomb-laden drone. And the commission, either wittingly or unwittingly (someone obviously would have known but the commissioners themselves may have been oblivious to the details) merged the two planes together.
The big question is WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANE WITH THE PASSENGERS?
The plane that crashed in Shanksville had minimal human remains,and these could have been planted. This is why it seems likely that this plane did not have the passengers.
***A remote possibility is that the crater in Shanksville was a clever fake and the plane that was seen flying erratically right before the explosion simply flew over the crater site that was rigged to blow up and look like an airplane crash. This would be hard to set up precisely, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a witness seeing the plane fly over the crash site, overall is rather complicated and thus seems unlikely.
posted by spooked at 7:10 AM
2 Comments:
(This has to do with your last post too.)
OK...
so ALL the parts are numbered.
seems too risky to swap planes.
really, why is there a plane swap theory in the first place?
what if:
the easiest way to frame certain Arabs would be to do it the way the offical story recounts, but without hijackers (just Arab decoys on the ground - like Chilabies bunch or Arab looking Massasde- fighting over parking spaces and such)
-it's done by remote control. an almost common technology, ties in the wargames - if there really were such games. have you heard from independant eyewitneeses to their existances? i'd be interested if you have. the out-of-the-way flight paths could be because they needed time coordinate remote signals.
-and some of the calls from passeners and cockpits were faked
...that all...that's it.
but then what would we all be kept busy with?
those two are proveable only if there are whistleblowers. and that leaves us feeling powerless, right?
perchance someone invented - then fed us - a bunch of red herrings to let us feel like we "discovered" these important things. with the added benifit of keeping the pressure off the would-be sqeelers - to cool their guilt, knowing that there are ppl trying to tell the truth...if they even dare to look.
that French guy from the old- school/respectable leftist magazine was the one to really kick things off, right?...what became of him? and of course there is the thought that part of the left is just the other side of the same coin...the left gatekeepers/the right gatekeepers.
The Nation/The National Review
they may have our (CT'ists) psycological profile down to a tee. they know how to make us jump.
or not?
-stst from du
I agree with many of your points. I'm not sure it is so risky to swap planes . The wargames are very strongly documented though we don't know details.
The plane swap theory is obviously just a theory but is based on:
1) operation northwoods plan
2) it allows the ability to have bomb-carrying planes or specially-modified planes (which can explain the Pentagon hit for instance)
3) it is easier to rig up the remote control and cooridnate with fake hijackings.
The mysteries of 9/11 may be red herrings, but they still point to something. There has to be some explanation. If I could affect the politics of 9/11 great, but there's not much happening. Until then, I want to understand the day as well possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home