Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did the Flight 93 Hijackers Wait So Long to Start the Hijack?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 10:26 AM
Original message
Why did the Flight 93 Hijackers Wait So Long to Start the Hijack?
Edited on Wed May-25-05 11:03 AM by spooked911
Officially, the flight was over 40 minutes late taking off, scheduled departure time about 8am, it finally took off from Newark at 8:42am. Yet the hijacking didn't begin until 9:28am. (from the 9/11 C.R.)

Why on earth did the hijackers wait 46 minutes to start the hijacking if they were already running very late? Does this make any sense? This late hijacking should have given US air defenses much more time to react but also the pilots would have much more warning. If flight 93 had been hijacked some 15 minutes after take-off,like flight 11, then the hijacking would have occurred around 9:00am, before the second tower was hit and the overall attack was clear. What were the hijackers thinking.


Here is a great flight path/timeline for flight 93 from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:


You might note that flight 93, even though it is running very late, does not take a straight path to DC. It only turns toward DC at the very end. Do the hijackers not know where DC is, or were they going somewhere else?


Note-- Tom Burnett reports a hijack at 9:20am but the hijackers didn't take over the plane until 9:28am. What the hell happened in those 8 minutes???? Why weren't the pilots alerted to a cockpit take-over???? Then the plane didn't turn around until 9:35am. The hijackers were already running very late. Why did they wait so long to turn the plane around?

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Finally, does anyone know why flight 93 takes a little hook at the end? Why does it go North and then south before it crashes? Where were the hijackers trying to go?

The turn south at the very end may relate to this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x40128
where flight 93 put in a flight request to go to Washington DC, but why did the plane turn North before this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tom Burnett sitting in Flight X ?
I suppose he was sitting in the wrong plane. A mistake in the script or a drill ?
That piece of the puzzle your are emphasizing, don't fit to the picture of Flight 93.

Do you think the reported times are exactly ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. My guess is flight 93 was part of the hijacking exercise run that day
I think the reported times are quite close to accurate.

But the question is WHY did they wait so long to start the hijacking?

Either way-- if it is real or a drill-- it doesn't make much sense.

But it makes a lot less sense if it was real hijackers, frankly.

If it was a drill, one could imagine the passenger rebellion was part of the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. 9:14
Edited on Wed May-25-05 02:59 PM by JackRiddler
According to NORAD sources in several news reports of 2001 and an officer's testimony to Kean Commission of May 23, 2003, FAA alerts NORAD to hijacking.

Figure that out - it's before the hijacking starts, according to the above account. This was upheld by NORAD over two years' time!

Later, 9/11 Com Report says this was an error and NORAD received no word of hijacking until 10:07, after crash. But there is no accounting for the previous stories now alleged to be false.

10:03 is the new official crash time - the tremor from the same area at 10:06 is now just another amazing coincidence.

See points 7-10 in air defense appendix of the "Justice for 9/11" complaint to AG, here:

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I've seen that earlier hijack time, and I don't see how
that can be a mistake.

Clearly someone is just covering their ass or someone else's ass.

The question is, what tipped the FAA off that the plane was hijacked earlier?

And why does so little about the flight 93 timeline make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The FAA was not tipped off...
It's easy to guess the FAA figured it out on their own, quite early, this being the fourth hijacking within an hour... and they promptly told NORAD over the phone bridges that by then had been established for about 30 minutes already. Just as they claim in their May 21, 2003 press statement. Just as NORAD claimed for three years, until the Kean Commission arrived to "correct" the conflicting timelines and accounts so that everyone would be telling the same story.

The plane did not crash at 10:03 but at 10:06. Yeah, I'll risk a wager that the tremor at 10:06 was not a random natural occurrence that happened 3 minutes after the plane crash.

So the relatives did not get to hear the complete CVR of UA 93.

Edward Felt's call was genuine. He heard an explosion, then his phone was cut off.

Beamer's may not have been; he only talked with an operator, not his wife.

Most of the calls I expect were genuine because the plane was at a low altitude and those called would know their own relatives. (Weird items like "Mom, this is Mark Bingham" are explicable. Bingham may have been nervous and blurted out his own name. Or his mother is remembering it the wrong way.)

Speculation: UA 93 was tracked and shot down once it was clear that the passengers were going to regain control. Perhaps a remote control hijacking failed in this case. Vital that there be no living hijackers and no living witnesses to tell a story that contradicts the OCT.

You ALL should know that the debris trail did not extend over 6-10 miles but more like 3. And the heavy debris could have rolled down a hill. So this evidence is not definitive to prove that UA 93 was shot down. I get this from someone who has cased the crash site very carefully.

I AM certain that it was shot down because the government feels such a need to make up a false time for the crash, to suppress the Edward Felt call, and to stick to its hero story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Good points, but overall the crater looks fake to me.
Basically I can't see a normal plane disappearing into a hole like that. What happened to the tail???? No way it went compeltely into the hole. And tails don't normally disintegrate upon crashing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Do you have comprehensive crash scene photos?
The area of the crash was an old mine. The plane could have been engulfed by the ground. I'm not saying that's certain, I'm saying speculation is pointless.

Once again, what do we gain by proceeding into speculative "PE" territory in which we lack the complete evidence? Hours of inconclusive debate.

I am in contact with a group who checked out the scene at Shanksville last year. They spoke with a few of the witnesses, all of whom said they saw a plane going down.

However, none of the ones who questioned the official story in published accounts (i.e., those who said the plane had already been hit while in the air) were willing to speak again on the record. That should tell you something.

The multiple and conflicting official timelines expose themselves, especially the Commission's pathetic attempt to fake the crash time.

What's on the missing three minutes of the CVR tape?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Actually, we have a very extensive description of the crash scene
from Jere Longman's book "Among the Heroes".

Can I ask you, what do you think happened to the tail? No one reported finding it outside the hole. I don't believe the hole tail went in the hole. Did the tail disintegrate? If so, how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. What about people who saw a passenger plane going down?
I don't know what happened to the tail. I am aware that there was only small-size debris visible at the crash scene, also in a few pictures taken from a distance. Does this prove something? (I mean: prove. Not "give rise to suspicion," but prove, the only standard that matters with "physical evidence.")

What about those who saw a passenger plane going down? Some reported it flying upside down. What happened to that plane? Or do you think these are more planted witnesses?!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Could the plane have been crashed into the lake?
Edited on Thu May-26-05 11:23 PM by DoYouEverWonder
Then they caused an explosion on land to distract people from the real crash site?

Look over here everybody, this is where the plane crashed, despite the fact that there seems to be no plane, people or much of anything other than dirt.



Here's a link to the site map





Here's some pics that were taken on 9-12-01. Where's the plane?












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. There is as much case for jamming by the C 130H at the site as shoot down
It is said that C 130H often have the type of equipment that can bring a plane down by jamming, and the C 130H at this site was also at the Pentagon and part of very suspecious interaction there.
Witnesses said the plane stalled, was flying irregularly, falling end over end,etc. Was it electronic jamming or shoot down?

Seems they were a part of the plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. makes sense to me
Or if it was remote control, they just steered it into the ground once the passengers were too much of a danger.

Shit, there's no way to know much at all, here, is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. There's some really advanced technology out there these days
makes it possible to do things most people aren't aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. C-130
I remember that witness statement. This is very bizarr because the crew witnessed two crashes a day. The probality that these statements are true is very, very low - unless the C-130 had been a part of a 9-11 exercise.

Furthermore I can't find a witness report approving the appearance of a C-130 near Shanksville (only noticed by FBI).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Is it possible some of the witnesses mistook C130 for Fl 93?
Edited on Thu May-26-05 10:34 PM by philb
Does anyone have a site dealing with where the C130 was and what it did at the Fl 93 site.

The story at Pentagon is extremely suspicious.
Anyone know who the pilots were?
Has anyone checked out their background? connections?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. Actually, you mean 9:16am. But what on earth happened before 9:16am??
to make the FAA suspect a hijacking? The plane wasn't off course, the transponder was on, there were no phone calls, there were no sounds of struggle from the cockpit.

SOMETHING IMPORTANT IS BEING COVERED UP!!!!!! WHAT MADE THEM SUSPECT A HIJACK THIS EARLY????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. you're right...
NORAD claimed before the Kean Commission in May 2003 that they were alerted to the UA 93 hijack on 9/11 at 9:16 a.m.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

See also:
THE EMPEROR'S NEW TIMELINES
http://summeroftruth.org/#timelines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Somehow Flight 77 and Flight 93 are connected
Both flights were scheduled to take off at 8:01 AM.


Flight 77 takes off at 8:20


At about 8:42 Flight 77 makes an odd detour toward Morgantown WV.





Flight 93 takes off at 8:42


I think Flight 77 was stalling waiting for Flight 93 to take off. Bush, Rummie, Myers, Cheney and Tenet were stalling too, but that is a side note.

Second, I don't think the flight paths that Bu$hCo released to the media are accurate, I think they are fake.

I think both planes flew west and landed at one of the airports that was shut down during the attack.

Then I think they consolidated the passengers into one of the planes and flew that one into the lake that is near the 'crash sight' for Flight 93.

Last, whatever flew into or blew up at the Pentagon was not Flight 77. More likely a missile dressed up like a plane, or another plane loaded with bombs or more likely lots of extra fuel.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree that flight 77 was probably waiting for flight 93
but why didn't the flight 93 guys get going ealier? Flight 11 was hijacked within 15 minutes of take-off. Flight 93 was way late taking off but the hijackers took at least 30-40 minutes to hijack.

And we have to wonder how real the flight paths are-- even though as they are they are somewhat damning.

Combining the passengers is possible but somewhat unlikely. I agree flight 77 probably didn't hit the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Flight 93 had further to fly at that point ?
in order to rendezvous with Flight 77. No need to take over the plane and alert the flight controllers until they were closer to where they had to land to meet the other flight? In the meantime Flight 77 is flying in one big circle waiting for Flight 93 to catch up. Of course, this assumes that the two planes had some means of communicating between each other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Yes I think the initial diversion of Flt 77
meaning that bump in the middle of the flight path, is a moderate smoking gun. I expect that was the originally planned "hijacking" of 77, and for some reason they reversed it and stuck it back on its course before proceeding with the diversion again at a later point.

It could also be part of a plane-swapping scenario, or a holding pattern to let UA 93 get going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. did you figure out if Flight X at Cleveland was likely Fl 93 as FAA said
Edited on Wed May-25-05 11:16 PM by philb
at one point?


What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html


detours/stalling around might also be part of coordination with take down/ plane replacement

And the FAA notification that Flight 77 had crashed/or landed near Kentucky/Ohio border might have been part of a take down/ replacement operation also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. "They" were thinking EITHER
Edited on Wed May-25-05 09:49 PM by stickdog
1) that the flight path was preprogrammed or

2) that the plan required flying over a certain between regional ATCC "blind spot" so that one plane's radar return signal could be confused with another to complete 9/11 terra'ist attack illusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. And there's poor George Bush, stuck in that classroom, killing time.
Wondering what the hell's going on up there. Did he look like a guy with the fear of God in him? Like, this whole thing might become exposed and, then what? What will his trial be like? Will he be hanged for treason?

"I saw the 1st plane hit the tower on TV and I thought, that was one bad pilot". Yeah, sure you did George.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
staticstopper Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Ya, I remember him looking
Edited on Thu May-26-05 02:52 PM by staticstopper
like crap when he gave that little "we will get the "folks" who..." and the moment of silence with all the little kids surrounding him at the school that morning - he could barely talk from the cotton-mouth and the 10 seconds of silence was about 3 secs long. I think at that moment he was freaked-out. I watched it live...And it's weird that this huge moment of American history is never played over, i guess it was deemed to be of no propoganda use to the war-mongers.

"Any country that harbors terrorists" Well - by george! - looks like some of them might got fake/faked US passports and got to attend The School of the Americas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Another weirdness
Edited on Thu May-26-05 04:11 PM by DoYouEverWonder
is that Booker Elementary deleted the last two pages from their photo gallery of Bush's visit. There are no longer any pictures of Bush during the reading lesson in their Photo Gallery from that day.

http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/emma/9.11.01/photogallery.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the screen, the links for pages 9 & 10 are dead.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Are originals out there somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. No, they were scrubbed a long time ago
nothing in the Wayback Machine either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. What I want to know.
Were any/all of those 4 planes part of the war game simulations underway that morning? Simple question...yes or no?

Why didn't the 9/11 Whitewash Committee ask that question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Because we can't handle the truth!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
30. delay
That forty five minute delay in Newark certainly figures in on things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. How so? What are you getting at?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. they were buying time
Edited on Fri May-27-05 12:18 PM by demodewd
They were running 45 minutes behind schedule.They had to buy some time. If Flight 93 were to rendezvous with the other three planes,load on the other passengers...and then return to air from some secret airbase in probably PA or NY .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. But if they had to buy some time, why did they take so long to hijack the
plane? It doesn't make sense.

What I want to know is if flight 93 was REALLY delayed at newark by air traffic or whether the delay was part of the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. what?
What doesn't make sense? The had to measure time. The amount of time for the true Flight 93 to meet its rendezvous and do what they had to do which was transferring the bodies onto the one flight and whatever else. Then there was in all probability a fake highjacking of the phantom 93. The phantom Flight 93 then proceeds to make a 180 and head over to PA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Would you mind writing out your flight 93 scenario?
Like what you think the plan was? Where the phantom flight 93 came from? Which bodies were they loading? What exactly crashed in Shanksville?

I'm so confused about the whole thing right now, and if you have some good idea of what happened, maybe you could enlighten me.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. more on delay
Edited on Sun May-29-05 10:05 AM by demodewd
The four commercial jet planes that were allegedly hijacked landed at the same base. Passengers and crew or their bodies from Flights 175,11 and 77 all were to be transferred on to Flight 93.

But there was the delay. Flight 93 sat in the Newark Airport for an additional 40 minutes. This delayed the entire procedure by as much also. I am assuming that the passengers and crew in the first three planes had been all gassed when ground control took over their flights..Of course,I don't know. Anyway their bodies were to be transferred on to 93. A 40 minute plus delay because its still sitting in Newark.

If you notice on the plane path charts,93 did its about turn very soon after it had been reportedly hijacked. In other words the fake 93 was buying time for the real 93 while the real 93 was hauling ass over to the base rendezvous to meet the other three flights which had already landed.

The 46 minute time segment between takeoff and being allegedly hijacked is close in measured time to the 42 minute delay in Newark.

The real 93 that was heading to its meeting point would have just landed there,the body transfers would have begun. That the phantom 93 plane heading towards Cleveland did a 180 shortly after this alloted 42-46 minute time period indicates to me very possible pre-planning.It bought the time needed for the real 93 to set down at its rendezvous point.

The remainder of minutes it took to fly the phantom 93 to Shankville gave the operators time to load real 93 and send it on its way...maybe over to that abandoned coal field..where it self ignited.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. So you're saying a phantom flight 93 was the one shown on the flight path
and it was different from the real flight 93? When and where was the switch made?

The 46 minute time segment between takeoff and being allegedly hijacked is close in measured time to the 42 minute delay in Newark.


But the 46 minutes between takeoff and being allegedly hijacked comes AFTER the 42 minute delay. You seem to act as though these are concurrent times. But really, the delay in Newark and the delay in hijack added 88 minutes to whatever they were doing supposedly doing with the real flight 93. I'm sorry I don't understand your theory.

Also, you think ALL the flight 93 phone calls were fake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. the fake hijacking corresponded with the landing of the real 93
Edited on Sun May-29-05 11:22 AM by demodewd
The delay only added 42 minutes. The other 46 minutes the real Flight 93 was in the air headed to rendezvous with the other three and landed. But they had to make up for those 42 lost minutes by sending up a phantom 93 that turned around just after the real 93 touched ground at the airbase where the other three planes had already landed.

The fake hijacking corresponded with the landing of the real 93 at the rendezvous airbase. All was safe to proceed,they had bought their time back.So phantom 93 does the 180 and heads towards Shankville where it was brought down probably by a missile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I understand now-- makes sense. Thanks.
So do you think all the flight 93 calls were faked then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. However, why would the phantom flight 93 care what the real plane was
doing? If there was already a switch of planes, and ATCs were watching the phantom flight, it seems to me the phantom flight 93 could do whatever it wanted. Why would it need to time its hijacking for what the other flight was doing?

Sorry, I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. because..
Because Phase 1,the lifting off of Flight 93(the real one)and the landing of it at the rendezvous airbase had been completed.

Phase 2 Complete the operation at Shankville. So you immediately turn the phantom around and head it for Shankville because that's the plane crash blow-up that people see parts of and is reported in the news. The real 93 finishes loading itself up and then heads southwest I am guessing and self ignites probably in the coalfield..I momentarily lost my Atlas...near that town nearby Shankville.

3. They wouldn't want to waste a second. Get it done and clear the skies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Isn't this essentially the physics911 site Operation Pearl?
Operation Pearl A.K. Dewdney- (Airliner Flight Takedowns/Exchange and Replacement) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. As far as I can tell, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. re: what you really want to know
What I want to know is if flight 93 was REALLY delayed at Newark by air traffic or whether the delay was part of the plane.

SO DO I!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
44. Because
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 23rd 2021, 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC