Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 12-27-2004, 10:54 PM   #1
pussyluver
Clueless OleMan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ICQ - 169903487
Posts: 11,009
Did the US Military Shoot Down Flight 93 over PA?

I always had my suspect that is what might have happened. Wish that there was 100% trust in the government on an issue like this. I can see how it would be hard to say, we shot down our own airliner. This puts a cloud over the real heros on that flight and that's sad.

from CNN:

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
pussyluver is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 10:55 PM   #2
xclusive
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 35,218
I'm not sure but it makes me think they should investigate it...
__________________

I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /


xclusive is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 10:58 PM   #3
sean416
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,633
meh... we'll never know the truth, why bother speculate.

Maybe a dumb question, but if they DID shoot it down, why wouldnt they just admit it? In fear of admitting that they killed the people on board?
__________________

ServerProvider.com
sean416 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 10:59 PM   #4
pussyluver
Clueless OleMan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ICQ - 169903487
Posts: 11,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by xclusive
I'm not sure but it makes me think they should investigate it...
They did. Maybe it was a white-wash report. It would detract from calling those people heros if we shot the plane down. Plus all the political fall out. Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue was prolly close to the truth. How else would you expalin away a comment like that. Think of all the secrets in his head that he has to remember to STFU about.
pussyluver is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:01 PM   #5
pussyluver
Clueless OleMan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ICQ - 169903487
Posts: 11,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean416
meh... we'll never know the truth, why bother speculate.

Maybe a dumb question, but if they DID shoot it down, why wouldnt they just admit it? In fear of admitting that they killed the people on board?
They should admit it if that is what happened, but then there would be the heat for killing our own people! Even though it might have been required. Could of affected the outcome of the next election.
pussyluver is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:01 PM   #6
hyper
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mass Ass
Posts: 5,294
I always said they shot it down.

there was too much secrecy between the first 3 crashes and the reporting of flight 93 crashing.

you didnt here anything for a few hours
__________________
hyper is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:03 PM   #7
pornguy
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
pornguy's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Homeless
Posts: 62,911
I dont see that admiting that they shot it down would take away from the Heros that Did die on that plane. They still tried to stop them, and that is what makes them a Hero. If the US Shot them down, it was to save a lot more lives, and that I can understand, But if they admitted to it now, the people would be all over their asses to find out what else thay have lied about in the past. They will never let the truth come out.
__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!
pornguy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:10 PM   #8
Greg Jacobson
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 812
Why would Rumsfeld lie to his own countrymen?

Greg Jacobson is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:13 PM   #9
Ron Bennett
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,653
:2cents Of course the U.S. military shot it down ...

Why else would the U.S. govt hide so much of the details surrounding the crash, and that of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon - lots of questions surrounding that ... and the govt has only ever released a few grainy stills, which appeared to have been doctored, of that ... the Pentagon has a lot more than one crappy discount special camera focused on the Pentagon ... so why haven't they ever released any of that other footage?

Simple, the U.S. govt, as so often in the past, is hiding a lot of details from the public - to be clear, I for one, am NOT suggesting the U.S. govt had anything to do with the 911 attacks per se, but rather for whatever reasons is not comfortable releasing the details of the how it was handled; some suggest the U.S. govt had forewarning of the attack - for folks who think that's not possible, read up on Pearl Harbor - history often repeats itself ... sadly

Ron
__________________
Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales
Ron Bennett is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:13 PM   #10
HAPPYPEEKERS
Confirmed User
 
HAPPYPEEKERS's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Margaritaville
Posts: 7,562
Sounds very suspisious to me

ps.. I dont like the new smilies that much
__________________
Please Read All Of My Posts In A Sarcastic Tone So You Get The Full Effect!!



HappyPeekers - April
HAPPYPEEKERS is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:13 PM   #11
NaughtyRob
Two fresh affiliate progs
 
NaughtyRob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Inside teen pussy
Posts: 29,602
Yes, I believe that the military shot it down.
NaughtyRob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:14 PM   #12
sean416
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,633
where was the plane heading? what was its 'would-be' target?
__________________

ServerProvider.com
sean416 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:19 PM   #13
Illicit
wtf ?
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: GFY
Posts: 11,895
Even if we did shoot it down, whats the problem ? It had to be done, or alot more people could have died.
__________________
Insert Sig Here
Illicit is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:19 PM   #14
pussyluver
Clueless OleMan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ICQ - 169903487
Posts: 11,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean416
where was the plane heading? what was its 'would-be' target?
?? White House and congress were both on the list I think.
pussyluver is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:30 PM   #15
KRL
Entrepreneur
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 31,429
The US Government has a proven consistent track record for deceiving the public, hiding facts, distorting the truth, producing deliberate misinformation, coverups, fraud, theft, assassinations of foreign leaders, corruption, mismanagement, and just about everything else under the sun. Thus one can logically and fairly assume anything could have occured with Flight 93. But we will never know the truth.
__________________
If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor
from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION!

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains
KRL is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2004, 11:30 PM   #16
directfiesta
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
directfiesta's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 29,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajpiii
Even if we did shoot it down, whats the problem ? It had to be done, or alot more people could have died.

The problem???

Not being truthfull, as per the oath of the president...

You know, this is just a little bit more important than a bj.... could investigate just a little bit...

__________________
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....
directfiesta is online now   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 12:17 AM   #17
jukeboxfrank
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: www.jenniferworthington.com
Posts: 1,207
Hats here !! Hats here!! get you tin foil hats here!! only 9.95 while they last.
__________________


ICQ= 231-182-592
jukeboxfrank is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 12:22 AM   #18
The Bootyologist
So Fucking Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: m00dville
Posts: 2,912
it's very possible

who can trust the govt anymore
The Bootyologist is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 12:22 AM   #19
neverlearn
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Banners, FPA, HPA, FLASH, Illustration, Web Design, Print, posters, business cards, LOGOS ...ICQ 210-450-833
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Jacobson
Why would Rumsfeld lie to his own countrymen?

Maybe that plane was a huge missle aimed for somewhere big and populated...people are so quick to judge military decisions knowing fuck all about what couldve been...I really dont know what happened, but the US military probably had thier reasons.
bottom line...it sucks either way.
__________________
DICK TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR.
Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.
neverlearn is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 12:26 AM   #20
sean416
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukeboxfrank
Hats here !! Hats here!! get you tin foil hats here!! only 9.95 while they last.

__________________

ServerProvider.com
sean416 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 12:53 AM   #21
I Like Chocolate
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 821
while im highly skeptical of the government and its honesty i think the plane crashed due to the passengers struggling with the terrorists on board.
I Like Chocolate is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 01:13 AM   #22
ProjectNaked
Confirmed User
 
ProjectNaked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Detroit Areola
Posts: 4,309

It was shot down, no way they were going to risk it hitting another building, most likely the white house-which would have been last, when all of the cameras were out recording.
ProjectNaked is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 01:37 AM   #23
TheMob
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 2006
Posts: 8,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by pussyluver
I always had my suspect that is what might have happened. Wish that there was 100% trust in the government on an issue like this. I can see how it would be hard to say, we shot down our own airliner. This puts a cloud over the real heros on that flight and that's sad.

from CNN:

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
Wow, I should start selling tin hats on ebay again
TheMob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:02 AM   #24
Webby
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Far far away - as possible
Posts: 14,956
Quote:
Wow, I should start selling tin hats on ebay again
Don't knock it!! Serious biz is tin hats....

That's the new version of hiding under schools desks as protection from nukes.

On the PA flight - we know it is as stated, - no govt ever lies. You are talking about people you can trust with your life...... if you must :-)
__________________
XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.
Webby is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:05 AM   #25
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
Why else would the U.S. govt hide so much of the details surrounding the crash, and that of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon - lots of questions surrounding that ... and the govt has only ever released a few grainy stills, which appeared to have been doctored, of that ... the Pentagon has a lot more than one crappy discount special camera focused on the Pentagon ... so why haven't they ever released any of that other footage?

Simple, the U.S. govt, as so often in the past, is hiding a lot of details from the public - to be clear, I for one, am NOT suggesting the U.S. govt had anything to do with the 911 attacks per se, but rather for whatever reasons is not comfortable releasing the details of the how it was handled; some suggest the U.S. govt had forewarning of the attack - for folks who think that's not possible, read up on Pearl Harbor - history often repeats itself ... sadly

Ron

Only a total idiot questions whether or not an airliner hit the Pentagon, the PA airliner . . . who knows? It wouldn't surprise me, or bother me.
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:08 AM   #26
neverlearn
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Banners, FPA, HPA, FLASH, Illustration, Web Design, Print, posters, business cards, LOGOS ...ICQ 210-450-833
Posts: 2,085
I?m looking through a hole in the sky
I?m seeing nowhere through the eyes of a lie
I?m getting closer to the end of the line
I?m living easy where the sun doesn?t shine

I?m living in a room without any view
I?m living free because the rent?s never due
The synonyms of all the things that I?ve said
Are just the riddles that are built in my head

Hole in the sky, take me to heaven
Window in time, through it I fly

I?ve seen the stars disappear in the sun
The shooting?s easy if you?ve got the right gun
And even though I?m sitting waiting for mars
I don?t believe there?s any future in cause

Hole in the sky, take me to heaven
Window in time, through it I fly
Yeah

I?ve watched the dogs of war enjoying their feast
I?ve seen the western world go down in the east
The food of love became the greed of our time
But now I?m living on the profits of pride




GET IT STRAIGHT MOFOS
__________________
DICK TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR.
Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.
neverlearn is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:18 AM   #27
neverlearn
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Banners, FPA, HPA, FLASH, Illustration, Web Design, Print, posters, business cards, LOGOS ...ICQ 210-450-833
Posts: 2,085
__________________
DICK TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR.
Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.
neverlearn is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:39 AM   #28
Pipeline Q
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,891
Here is a very interesting website...

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight9...ris_field.html
Pipeline Q is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 02:56 AM   #29
bikinihouse
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 843
American government has been fucked up ever since JFK.

There needs to be a revolution, seriously...
bikinihouse is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 03:25 AM   #30
Manowar
jellyfish  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 71,528
I don't doubt that they shot it down, i dont think a plane hit the pentagon either.
Manowar is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 03:50 AM   #31
WarChild
Let slip the dogs of war.
 
WarChild's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 17,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manowar
I don't doubt that they shot it down, i dont think a plane hit the pentagon either.
No, of course a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Instead, a Plane full of passengers was crashed elsewhere and covered up just in time for something else to smash in to the Pentagon. The only question left is why anybody bothered. If you have to get rid of a plane full of people, and then you have to crash something in to the Pentagon, why not use the plane in the first place?
__________________
.
WarChild is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 03:52 AM   #32
pussyluver
Clueless OleMan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ICQ - 169903487
Posts: 11,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikinihouse
American government has been fucked up ever since JFK.

There needs to be a revolution, seriously...
I'd say our elections represent a revolution. Just a little less violent.
pussyluver is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 04:31 AM   #33
uno
RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER
 
uno's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NYC Area
Posts: 18,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Only a total idiot questions whether or not an airliner hit the Pentagon, the PA airliner . . . who knows? It wouldn't surprise me, or bother me.
I gotta agree with the baddog here. A plane definitely hit the pentagon. As for the one that ate dirt in PA, I remember all the first reports on that day were that it was shot down, then later it turns out that orders were given by Cheney to shoot it down, but Bush was rolling high from the "Let's roll!" slogan. Final gov't verdict, intentional terrorist grounding.
__________________
-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
uno is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 04:51 AM   #34
JFK
FUBAR the ORIGINATOR
 
JFK's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FUBARLAND
Posts: 67,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRL
The US Government has a proven consistent track record for deceiving the public, hiding facts, distorting the truth, producing deliberate misinformation, coverups, fraud, theft, assassinations of foreign leaders, corruption, mismanagement, and just about everything else under the sun. Thus one can logically and fairly assume anything could have occured with Flight 93. But we will never know the truth.
and you have a problem with this ??
__________________

FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX
For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com
JFK is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 04:59 AM   #35
Mojiteaux
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 265
Clearly the plane was shot down. There is plenty of proof for that even though the Bush admin doesn't want to admit it. Too bad they couldn't keep the eyewitnesses quiet
Mojiteaux is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:05 AM   #36
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by pussyluver
I always had my suspect that is what might have happened. Wish that there was 100% trust in the government on an issue like this. I can see how it would be hard to say, we shot down our own airliner. This puts a cloud over the real heros on that flight and that's sad.

from CNN:

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
There are zillions of websites dedicated to this very topic. Have you checked out www.911review.org and www.911truth.org and all the many others?
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:06 AM   #37
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyper
I always said they shot it down.

there was too much secrecy between the first 3 crashes and the reporting of flight 93 crashing.

you didnt here anything for a few hours
That, and also there is too much forensic evidence pointing to a mid-air explosion (as opposed to a collision into the ground). For example, luggage and body parts were found miles from the crash site.
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:08 AM   #38
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Only a total idiot questions whether or not an airliner hit the Pentagon, the PA airliner . . . who knows? It wouldn't surprise me, or bother me.
Only an idiot scoffs at intellectual inquiry into highly suspicious activity on the part of our own government
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:08 AM   #39
TheFrog
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,095
i bet they did, the US government is so corrupt
TheFrog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:11 AM   #40
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikinihouse
American government has been fucked up ever since JFK.

There needs to be a revolution, seriously...
I agree, we seriously need to revolt! We deserve to know the truth and our government treats us like cattle. The only way to counter this is to refuse to act like cattle. But you're in Canada, aren't you, you lucky bastard
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:12 AM   #41
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabomb
Only an idiot scoffs at intellectual inquiry into highly suspicious activity on the part of our own government

Here, idiot
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:13 AM   #42
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabomb
But you're in Canada, aren't you, you lucky bastard

What's keeping you?
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:27 AM   #43
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
your point? i said intellectual inquiry dipshit
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM   #44
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
What's keeping you?
I'm not Canadian and besides the Revolution has already begun. It's just not televised so dipshits like you don't know
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 06:29 AM   #45
dabomb
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFrog
i bet they did, the US government is so corrupt
true dat
dabomb is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 07:25 AM   #46
erehwon
Confirmed User
 
erehwon's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: A secure undisclosed location...
Posts: 3,759
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Posted: 0254 GMT (1054 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
__________________
Money NEVER $leep$...
erehwon is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 07:34 AM   #47
UltraSonic
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UltraVirtuality
Posts: 1,728
I red the whole NTSB file about that crash.

Some things are pretty much disturbing.

Fact 1: The NTSB reports the the aircraft eventually went down because it was in a split elevator position (left elevator down - right up) wich is technically impossible if the aircraft wasn't already damaged in the elevator because on a 747 of that type both elevators are handled by ONE hydraulic pump (backup up 2 times). So even if the captain and co-pilot do a different movement (called a break out) with the yoke the elevator still moves totally into the same position.

Fact 2: The aircraft's throttle was powered to 92% at the moment of impact yet the engines didn't show any signs of power (nothing was sucked up when the aircraft was shearing threetops) so engines where aither shut down or out of order on the moment of impact.

Fact 3: The data black box shows that whoever was flying the aircraft (or trying to) was trying to pitch up for atleast 3 mins before impact. If the aircraft was taken over by passengers and they had someone who was able to fly the aircraft (because they kept trying to pitch up) the aircraft wouldn't have crashed into the woods but near an airfield or landed safe.
__________________
Your Blend, Your Product

UltraSonic is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 07:36 AM   #48
XxXotic
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Swamps
Posts: 8,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Only a total idiot questions whether or not an airliner hit the Pentagon, the PA airliner . . . who knows? It wouldn't surprise me, or bother me.
of all the witnesses, not one person claimed to have ever seen a plane hit the pentagon. The surveilance tapes on the highway (by the pentagon where the "plane" supposedly passed) and outside the pentagon were confiscated by the government and NEVER released.

The hole in the side of the pentagon was large enough for a cruise missle to make but entirely too small for a passenger jet and remind me again where ANY pieces of an airplane were recovered from the pentagon crash site, and the angle/area the plane impacted was far too low for a passenger jet to not have slammed into the ground well before it hit the wall

Only a total idiot believes what news agencies feed them, hope ya got some beer to wash that bullshit down, I hear it's kinda dry. We can all speculate it was this or that but fact remains not a single one of us will EVER know the truth about that day.

EVER

__________________
Oxeo - Serious Hosting For Serious Webmasters. iCQ:135.887013
XxXotic is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 08:31 AM   #49
Rochard
Jägermeister Test Pilot
 
Rochard's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,999
You can argue and debate about what happened that day to no end.

I love the ideas about what happened at the Pentagon. One of the websites tells us it's impossible that the Pentagon swallowed up the entire airplane. The funny thing about that is I saw two planes be swallowed whole that day when they slammed into the World Trade Center. And I really like the one about the whole in the Pentagon, saying it's too small. The plane didn't punch a little hole in the wall of the Pentagon; It took out an entire section of the building.

I wonder how many people would be involved in covering something like this up. I'm not talking about the people at the top levels of the Government; I'm talking about the lowly air traffic control who gave the order - the the forty people sitting around him. Surely someone would have come forward by now.

Yeah, let's have an investigation about this. Let's tie up more of our tax dollars and start another witch hunt.
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION
Rochard is online now   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 08:34 AM   #50
UltraSonic
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UltraVirtuality
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSonic
I red the whole NTSB file about that crash.

Some things are pretty much disturbing.

Fact 1: The NTSB reports the the aircraft eventually went down because it was in a split elevator position (left elevator down - right up) wich is technically impossible if the aircraft wasn't already damaged in the elevator because on a 747 of that type both elevators are handled by ONE hydraulic pump (backup up 2 times). So even if the captain and co-pilot do a different movement (called a break out) with the yoke the elevator still moves totally into the same position.

Fact 2: The aircraft's throttle was powered to 92% at the moment of impact yet the engines didn't show any signs of power (nothing was sucked up when the aircraft was shearing threetops) so engines where aither shut down or out of order on the moment of impact.

Fact 3: The data black box shows that whoever was flying the aircraft (or trying to) was trying to pitch up for atleast 3 mins before impact. If the aircraft was taken over by passengers and they had someone who was able to fly the aircraft (because they kept trying to pitch up) the aircraft wouldn't have crashed into the woods but near an airfield or landed safe.

Correction, this crash was about the aircraft that went down in the woods.
__________________
Your Blend, Your Product

UltraSonic is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.