Hacking group says it has 9/11 legal documents that will 'burn down deep state'

[The Culture Bunker]

You never know, somebody onboard might have seen Executive Decision and had a couple of flying lessons and might have thought it worth a punt.

True. They made it seem easy enough on the Krypton Factor, after all.

[mothman]

I don't know enough about U93, obviously, but presumably they had an idea what they'd do once they'd regained control? I presume their impetus wasn't just "We're going to crash and die anyway, so let's not have it be by crashing into the White House."

[Cuellar]

Look forward to this.

[touchingcloth]

I don't know enough about U93, obviously, but presumably they had an idea what they'd do once they'd regained control? I presume their impetus wasn't just "We're going to crash and die anyway, so let's not have it be by crashing into the White House."

I think that some of the people on the plane had had phone contact with the ground and knew what had happened to the other planes, so I think the grim reality was just that they wanted to bring it down away from victims on the ground.

[Mister Six]

U93 went down, it was only four minutes after the collapse of the first (South) tower of the WTC (which itself happened two minutes after the passengers on U93 started their attempt), so any order to shoot it down would have had to predate the knowledge that one or both towers were going to collapse, killing hundreds more than had already been killed.

Not really. If jets had been scrambled and we're flying behind U93 it wouldnt take more than a few seconds to confirm the shot and have the pilot pull the trigger, surely?

And in any case I don't see why it  would matter. You hardly have to wait for the tower to fall to know that shooting down the plane might be necessary. It's not hard to figure out that the 33 or so people on that plane are almost certainly going to die either way, and knocking the plane down over farmland is preferable to it hitting any civilian or military building.

[Crisps?]

Photogenic, all-American blonde mom Heather "Lucky" Penney was "ordered to down United Flight 93, [but] there was not time to outfit their aircraft with live ammunition. The mission could only have been accomplished by ramming the plane [...] Flight 93 subsequently crashed as heroic passengers fought to take control of the aircraft. "

If that doesn't convince the America-h8rz here...

When asked why she was ready to fly a kamikaze mission:

"Because there are things in this world that are more important than ourselves. Freedom. The Constitution of the United States. Our way of life. Mom, baseball, apple pie; these things and so many more that make us uniquely American. We belong to something greater than ourselves. As complex and diverse and discordant as it is, this thing, this idea called America, binds us together in citizenship and community and brotherhood."

[Paul Calf]

She's right. Nowhere else in the world can you find mothers, rounders or apple pies.

[mothman]

Not really. If jets had been scrambled and we're flying behind U93 it wouldnt take more than a few seconds to confirm the shot and have the pilot pull the trigger, surely?

And in any case I don't see why it  would matter. You hardly have to wait for the tower to fall to know that shooting down the plane might be necessary. It's not hard to figure out that the 33 or so people on that plane are almost certainly going to die either way, and knocking the plane down over farmland is preferable to it hitting any civilian or military building.

I didn't mean the shoot-down decision, more precisely the way it's viewed in hindsight. The vast amount of damage that resulted from the towers' collapse is part of the abiding impact of 9/11; it's impossible to say for certain, but suppose they hadn't collapsed? The danger that an airliner presents as a terror wepaon might have been lessened in the eyes of many, and therefore would call into question any decision to shoot it down.

She's right. Nowhere else in the world can you find mothers, rounders or apple pies.

Careful, sometimes it feels like many Americans do actually believe this to be the case.

[Twed]

She's right. Nowhere else in the world can you find mothers, rounders or apple pies.

"Voting is the most American thing you can do" is something I really can't get enough of hearing.

[Shit Good Nose]

"Voting is the most American thing you can do" is something I really can't get enough of hearing.

Pretty sure that's surpassed by eating mac and cheese.  That's all they do - eat mac and cheese.  Even the ones that don't vote, mac and cheese.  Three michelin star American restaurant?  They always do mac and cheese.

[Mister Six]

I didn't mean the shoot-down decision, more precisely the way it's viewed in hindsight. The vast amount of damage that resulted from the towers' collapse is part of the abiding impact of 9/11; it's impossible to say for certain, but suppose they hadn't collapsed?

So what? You're still looking at hundreds dead. Certainly more than would have died if the aircraft had been shot down. And the plane was almost certainly en route to the White House (which was confirmed afterwards, but was pretty obvious at the time) too. Nobody's sat around twiddling their thumbs saying "Nah, wait to see if the towers fall down first."

This, incidentally, is why I think the truther stuff is bobbins. Four planes shot down with no casualties beyond those on them would have been enough to send America to war in the Middle East. One plane hitting the WTC but not toppling it even more so.

Why line the building with bombs that could be discovered by bystanders to ensure it will fall down when a couple of hijacked planes alone would do the job? That's without even taking into account the implausibility of actually pulling off a demolition job like that without anyone noticing.

[Shit Good Nose]

It's like the moon landings isn't it - if it was an inside job then the sheer number of people involved and the cost and hassle of keeping all of them quiet, it's actually cheaper and easier to do it for real, i.e. men did land on the moon and 9/11 was not carried out by the US government.

It's common sense.

[mothman]

Common sense? That's for sheeple!

Sixxy, I feel like we're arguing about different things. You're saying I'm saying the collapse of the towers would have influenced whether or not to shoot down any of the airliners. And, no, it wouldn't. But what I'm actually saying is, the fact the towers collapsed might play a part in how a shoot-down decision is (or would be) viewed in hindsight. I'm speculating on something intangible, unprovable.

[touchingcloth]

It's like the moon landings isn't it - if it was an inside job then the sheer number of people involved and the cost and hassle of keeping all of them quiet, it's actually cheaper and easier to do it for real, i.e. men did land on the moon and 9/11 was not carried out by the US government.

It's common sense.

I'm with you on 9/11, but you need to look more deeply into the moon landing stuff. It's really not plausible that they did it with the tech available at the time (look at Gemini 8 and Apollo 1), which combined with things like the lack of parallel shadows in the photographs makes it pretty clear that the most likely explanation is it was all carefully staged.

[biggytitbo]

It's like the moon landings isn't it - if it was an inside job then the sheer number of people involved and the cost and hassle of keeping all of them quiet, it's actually cheaper and easier to do it for real, i.e. men did land on the moon and 9/11 was not carried out by the US government.

It's common sense.

The Manhatten project involved 130,000 people and they kept that secret. 10,000 people worked at Bletchley Park and they all kept it secret until the 1970s. How many people did it involve to infiltrate, help or initiate the 9/11 plot and how would anyone find out now the hijackers are all dead?

[Shit Good Nose]

but you need to look more deeply into the moon landing stuff.

I have.  There is an endless amount of verifiable independent third party evidence out there, not least the Chinese confirming it with their probes.  And the Chinese aren't exactly BFFs with America...

[touchingcloth]

I have.  There is an endless amount of verifiable independent third party evidence out there, not least the Chinese confirming it with their probes.  And the Chinese aren't exactly BFFs with America...

Outwardly not, but look into where they hang out with each other out of the public eye. Do some reading about something called "Bilderberg Group". Seriously scary stuff.

[Mister Six]

Outwardly not, but look into where they hang out with each other out of the public eye. Do some reading about something called "Bilderberg Group". Seriously scary stuff.

Pretty sure Xi Jinping and chums aren't hanging out with the Bilderberg lot.

[Johnny Yesno]

Do some reading about something called "Bilderberg Group". Seriously scary stuff.

Turns out they were responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. Talk about rubbing our noses in it.

[biggytitbo]

Even if the way superpowers interact with each other in secret is anything like we envisage, which it probably isn't, they're economically dependent on each other and are unlikely to want to give away each others biggest secrets when they could use them for leverage behind the scenes.

[Blumf]

Turns out they were responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. Talk about rubbing our noses in it.

You mean the Olympic, which was swapped with the Titanic for an insurance scam

[Thomas]

I'm with you on 9/11, but you need to look more deeply into the moon landing stuff. It's really not plausible that they did it with the tech available at the time (look at Gemini 8 and Apollo 1), which combined with things like the lack of parallel shadows in the photographs makes it pretty clear that the most likely explanation is it was all carefully staged.

A common trick of photography, perspective, and uneven surfaces. Some railings, presumably not faked in a studio:



I like when moon-conspiracists (not yourself) claim that there must have been two light sources, as the shadows don't align - forgetting, of course, that this would also cast two shadows per astronaut.

However, I have it on good authority that James Cameron's Titanic was filmed in studios.

[touchingcloth]

Yes, exactly. There must have been at least five light sources in some of those shots. And look at the visor reflections of Aldrin.

[Thomas]

I don't know if you're muckin' abaht, but the reflections seem perfectly reasonably considering that it's a bulbous, convex surface reflecting shadows on an uneven moonscape. All the shadows veer off towards to a singular vanishing point.

The same warped imagery occurs if you oil a man's beer belly on a beach, and stare into it.

[biggytitbo]

A common trick of photography, perspective, and uneven surfaces. Some railings, presumably not faked in a studio:



I like when moon-conspiracists (not yourself) claim that there must have been two light sources, as the shadows don't align - forgetting, of course, that this would also cast two shadows per astronaut.

However, I have it on good authority that James Cameron's Titanic was filmed in studios.

Doesn't it depend on the source of light? If the source is artificial the shadows will fan out in a straight line from it, if the source of light is the sun the shadows will effectively be parallel apart from the effects of perspective. The only source of light on the moon is the sun, so how do you explain this?



Reflected light maybe?

[Thomas]

I'd have to see a wider shot, but the 'odd' shadow at the bottom there (I guess that's what you're referring to) seems to be of the free standing pole (grey), not the leg of the lander (gold). All the shadows are consistently falling back and to the left.

[biggytitbo]

It's hard to explain even with an artificial light source, and the shadow is at right angles but whatever light is producing it doesn't affect the rest of the objects in frame. Maybe its a composite image.

[Kryton]

I blame Operation Blue Tony.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

That metallic pole is facing the light source horizontally (slightly diagonally in fact), and therefore casts a differently shaped shadow in the same direction as the legs. No difficult explanation, no need for any other light source

[Thomas]

It's hard to explain even with an artificial light source, and the shadow is at right angles but whatever light is producing it doesn't affect the rest of the objects in frame.

I think it does. Without knowing the horizontal and vertical angles of that diagonal grey rod, we can't really say that the shadow is weird. It might be leaning towards the camera, or straight out towards the right, or slightly away.

We also don't know how long it is. The shadow seems quite short for the length of the rod, suggesting the sunlight isn't hitting it perfectly side-on, which will skew the appearance of the shadow. I don't see anything to conclude that it's an odd image.

EDIT: Monsieur said it far more succinctly.