9/11 conspiracy theories

[markwit]

Not from personal mobiles, but there were the card swipe phones in the back of the jet seats.

 

One call was made from the toilet. Do they have swipe phones in there? From what I have read so far, all calls were made from mobile phones. I am doing my own research at the moment. I wish to remain open minded about the whole thing, but there are so many unanswered questions.

[markwit]

Because, by the time the passengers were aware of the hijacking, the pilots were flying at low altitude.

 

Calls were made before the evasive turn about was made, and the drop in altitude.

[markwit]

Flight 93 story including time line. This is not from a conspiracy site. No mention is made of 'swipe phones', only of cell phones - the forst call being made at 9.20am, 18 minutes after Flight 93 reached it's cruising altitude of 31,000ft at 515mph.

[venger]

I have just skimmed through this thread with great interest. I don't know whether it has been mentioned, but I seriously suggest that people watch the Loose Change documentary - Watch it here. Please watch it with an open mind.

 

The vast majority will not entertain this unfortunately, I have already seen it, and read other books supporting the unanswered questions of 9/11.

 

Shame that some people can comment on a book, film, story without even looking at them

[Beakerzoid]

Note the wording in the 'story'...

 

"A few minutes after 9 a.m., with the World Trade Center hundreds of miles behind it and now in flames, Flight 93 would have reached 31,000 feet and 515 mph."

 

'Would have reached....'

 

Not "had reached"...which suggests speculation.

 

Also, the hijackers had possibly gained control of the plane not long after 9pm as at 9.16 "FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have been hijacked." (source http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_timeline.html )

 

So, the first call, made around 9.18/9.20 would have taken place AFTER the hijack, and thus the plane may have decreased alt.

 

All events on Flight 93 are pure speculation anyway, as no-one really knows what happened there. I personally do not believe that the passengers 'overpowered the terrorists' and forced a crash landing - but instead believe the idea that the plane was, sadly, taken out of the skies by scrambled fighters. I do not subscribe to the bizarre theroy that it was diverted to another airport and the calls were all false.

 

I have seen the Loose Change documentaries, and browsed their website. Some of their ideas make some sort of sense, some just don't sit right - but after all they are speculating on what evidence they can see, so of course there will be some holes in the arguements. That is why I explored further, and read other materials, and didn't just take all their points as 'fact'.

[markwit]

OK, we could probably go on for ever. So many facets, so many arguments. But here is another Flight 93 website.

 

(9:27 a.m.): Flight 93 Passenger Tom Burnett Calls Wife, Mentions Bomb, Knife, and Gun

 

 

9:28 am (or Before): Erratic Flight 93 Movements Noticed by Cleveland Flight Controller

 

OK - I accept it does say 'or before'. Flight controller recalls "He'd go up 300 feet, he'd go down 300 feet"

 

 

(9:29 a.m.): Confirmation of Strange Sounds Coming from Flight 93; NORAD Not Notified

 

Shortly after hearing strange noises from the cockpit of Flight 93, Cleveland flight controllers notice the plane has descended about 700 feet.

 

OK, from this we can assume Flight 93 dropped no more than 1000ft still making it around 30,000ft. The next mention of altitude is 9.57am when it as apparently below 10,000ft and another call is made. Many calls are made in between.

 

I know this is nothing concrete, but when I fly this summer, I may well see how high we get before I lose my signal.

[Tony]

wasnt part of the original engineering brief to design the towers in such a way that they could withstand the impact of a large commericial airliner?

No it wasn't. Typical engineering design would normally withstand a small light aircraft, but not an airliner. But either way it's into the realms of pot luck to be honest.

[Tony]

Wind resitance created more force than a Boeing 757 travelling at c.400mph.

 

The building was designed to carry over five times it's own weight.

Sorry Venger but the first point is nonsense.

 

I'm not up to speed on the second point, but having been around buildings all my working life that sounds like nonsense too. They may have been overdesigned to factor of 5 but that's different to what you said.

 

Do we have a structural engineer in the house who can elaborate more?

[Tony]

'In the event of a hijacking, the National Military Command Center will be notified by the most expedious means bt the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of requests needing an immediate response.....forward requests for Department of Defence assistance to the secretary of Defense approval."

You're not reading it correctly and you're drawing the conclusion that the Air Force would somehow be able to force an airliner down (which they can't) or alternatively shoot down an airliner full of passengers (which they wouldn't). Additionally, (as I said before) they held their hands up to a **** up in their response - not that they could / would have been able to do much anyway. That is a blind alley

 

 

you think a second plane was able to hit the Soth Tower and over an hour later another plane hit the Pentagon without resistance or air traffic guidance?

Yes. There are over a hundred recorded witnesses that saw something that fitted the description of the airliner crashing into the Pentagon. It wasn't a drone / missile / whatever. It was American Airlines Flight 77, and plenty of independent people saw it and there was plenty of hard evidence to support it.

 

[Beakerzoid]

or alternatively shoot down an airliner full of passengers (which they wouldn't).

Yet President Bush and Vice Pres Chaney have admitted agreeing that any airliners refusing to turn away from DC airspace once warning was issue should be considered a threat and taken down (which was documented in the independent 911 Commission Report). I don't think it is too hard to believe that the air-force would be used in this manner.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/september01/cheney_9-16.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26

 

Now the reports mention that though the order was given, the plane was still forced down - but the fact stands that the air force WOULD have taken out the planes at the Presidents request. (whether they did, or it was a passenger uprising is the subject of quite a few conspiracy theories)