Post: #26

(09-13-2017 08:18 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Consider giving your thread a better title.
This small topic seems a little too niche for its own thread.
How about a general September 11, 2001 discussion thread ?
You have an hour from original posting to change it.

I didn't want this to turn into another 911 conspiracy nut job thread, but I might be too late....

Post: #27

(09-13-2017 12:03 PM)911 Wrote:  snip

Strong username to post correlation

Post: #28

(09-14-2017 10:52 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 08:18 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Consider giving your thread a better title.
This small topic seems a little too niche for its own thread.
How about a general September 11, 2001 discussion thread ?
You have an hour from original posting to change it.

Ugh...I didn't want this to turn into another 911 conspiracy nut job thread, but I might be too late....

(09-14-2017 03:14 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  Air defence fighters kept parked - never mind launched - without weapons? When strategic bombers are kept with nukes on board at all times and crews have just minutes to get airborne?

Correct - the entire article is bullshit.

The part about not storing fighters - especially not DC National Guard (read: part time weekend warrior aircraft that don't fly as much as active duty birds) without weapons is not bullshit. Any USAF bomb loader can tell you this - those planes were not kept with weapons at the ready. Commanders are extremely paranoid of accidents happening on their watch since that would endanger promotion potential - so no dice. Same deal with the National Guard troops that were propped up at airports all over the place right afterwards - they had no rounds in their magazines. Empty fucking weapons. Policy may have changed for the fighters and readiness posture, but if it did, I seriously doubt it is still that way over a decade later - paranoia about accidents sets in, commanders want to get their fourth star, etc. Not much changes in a bureaucracy.

I was in uniform when this happened. People who think there was a shoot down are smoking some serious crack. It did not happen that way - full stop. Even if it did and they wanted to cover it up, the US military is horrendously bad at keeping a secret that big - everyone involved from that unit, other branches, the FAA, civilian law enforcement agencies, right down to the enlisted Air Force bomb loader who had to update the inventory of whatever munitions were expended when the planes returned would know the truth and it would be out eventually.

Think of the USS Liberty - those sailers were ordered not to talk about what went down that day, but whaddya know, eventually they did. If you're waiting for something similar to come out of 911, you'll be disappointed.

There is no alternative history here.
No conspiracy.
No black helicopters.

Jesus, I pointed this article out for the whole female ego and participation trophy angle and I got an unexpected Truther eruption...

Post: #29

(09-14-2017 11:13 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:52 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 08:18 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Consider giving your thread a better title.
This small topic seems a little too niche for its own thread.
How about a general September 11, 2001 discussion thread ?
You have an hour from original posting to change it.

Ugh...I didn't want this to turn into another 911 conspiracy nut job thread, but I might be too late....

(09-14-2017 03:14 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  Air defence fighters kept parked - never mind launched - without weapons? When strategic bombers are kept with nukes on board at all times and crews have just minutes to get airborne?

Correct - the entire article is bullshit.

The part about not storing fighters - especially not DC National Guard (read: part time weekend warrior aircraft that don't fly as much as active duty birds) without weapons is not bullshit. Any USAF bomb loader can tell you this - those planes were not kept with weapons at the ready. Commanders are extremely paranoid of accidents happening on their watch since that would endanger promotion potential - so no dice. Same deal with the National Guard troops that were propped up at airports all over the place right afterwards - they had no rounds in their magazines. Empty fucking weapons. Policy may have changed for the fighters and readiness posture, but if it did, I seriously doubt it is still that way over a decade later - paranoia about accidents sets in, commanders want to get their fourth star, etc. Not much changes in a bureaucracy.

I was in uniform when this happened. People who think there was a shoot down are smoking some serious crack. It did not happen that way - full stop. Even if it did and they wanted to cover it up, the US military is horrendously bad at keeping a secret that big - everyone involved from that unit, other branches, the FAA, civilian law enforcement agencies, right down to the enlisted Air Force bomb loader who had to update the inventory of whatever munitions were expended when the planes returned would know the truth and it would be out eventually.

Think of the USS Liberty - those sailers were ordered not to talk about what went down that day, but whaddya know, eventually they did. If you're waiting for something similar to come out of 911, you'll be disappointed.

There is no alternative history here.
No conspiracy.
No black helicopters.

Jesus, I pointed this article out for the whole female ego and participation trophy angle and I got an unexpected Truther eruption...

Besides the facts pointed out by SlickyBoy, the passengers who fought to take over the plane were on the phone with people on the ground, saying they were going to fight back, right up to the famous sign off by Todd Beamer.

Let's Roll.

The hijackers were only armed with box cutters, and the ability to lock the cockpit door at a time before the reinforcements were added. We know the men on the plane attacked to fight for their lives, probably using luggage as shields and refreshment carts as battering rams. The fight occurred, and the plane went down in the process.

Occam's Razor applies here.

Post: #30

(09-14-2017 11:12 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 12:03 PM)911 Wrote:  snip

Strong username to post correlation

I blame Peugeot for that.

Porsche named its famous car model (greatest production car ever made) 901, but Peugeot
held the trademark for all three-digit models ending in "01". So they changed it to 911.


1963 Porsche 901

Post: #31

(09-14-2017 11:43 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:13 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:52 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 08:18 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Consider giving your thread a better title.
This small topic seems a little too niche for its own thread.
How about a general September 11, 2001 discussion thread ?
You have an hour from original posting to change it.

Ugh...I didn't want this to turn into another 911 conspiracy nut job thread, but I might be too late....

(09-14-2017 03:14 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  Air defence fighters kept parked - never mind launched - without weapons? When strategic bombers are kept with nukes on board at all times and crews have just minutes to get airborne?

Correct - the entire article is bullshit.

The part about not storing fighters - especially not DC National Guard (read: part time weekend warrior aircraft that don't fly as much as active duty birds) without weapons is not bullshit. Any USAF bomb loader can tell you this - those planes were not kept with weapons at the ready. Commanders are extremely paranoid of accidents happening on their watch since that would endanger promotion potential - so no dice. Same deal with the National Guard troops that were propped up at airports all over the place right afterwards - they had no rounds in their magazines. Empty fucking weapons. Policy may have changed for the fighters and readiness posture, but if it did, I seriously doubt it is still that way over a decade later - paranoia about accidents sets in, commanders want to get their fourth star, etc. Not much changes in a bureaucracy.

I was in uniform when this happened. People who think there was a shoot down are smoking some serious crack. It did not happen that way - full stop. Even if it did and they wanted to cover it up, the US military ishorrendously bad at keeping a secret that big - everyone involved from that unit, other branches, the FAA, civilian law enforcement agencies, right down to the enlisted Air Force bomb loader who had to update the inventory of whatever munitions were expended when the planes returned would know the truth and it would be out eventually.

Think of the USS Liberty - those sailers were ordered not to talk about what went down that day, but whaddya know, eventually they did. If you're waiting for something similar to come out of 911, you'll be disappointed.

There is no alternative history here.
No conspiracy.
No black helicopters.

Jesus, I pointed this article out for the whole female ego and participation trophy angle and I got an unexpected Truther eruption...

Besides the facts pointed out by SlickyBoy, the passengers who fought to take over the plane were on the phone with people on the ground, saying they were going to fight back, right up to the famous sign off by Todd Beamer.

Let's Roll.

The hijackers were only armed with box cutters, and the ability to lock the cockpit door at a time before the reinforcements were added. We know the men on the plane attacked to fight for their lives, probably using luggage as shields and refreshment carts as battering rams. The fight occurred, and the plane went down in the process.

Occam's Razor applies here.

Curtains, Occam's Razor should be about science, statistics and reality, not emotion. Good propaganda like the kind used in the OP's article uses a strong emotional pull to sidestep objectivity and build up its hero narrative:

Quote:When asked why she was willing to fly a kamikaze mission, Penney doesn’t hesitate. “Why? 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.”

So, either you believe in Freedom, The Constitution of the United States, Our way of life. Mom, baseball, apple pie, or you're "a conspiracy nut" *.

If you really wanted to apply Occam's Razor on an objective plane, you'd have realized that the odds of placing a single cellphone call in 2001 from a commercial flight are virtually nil. Yet the official reports claimed that 10 cellphone calls were placed from Flight 93, including the "let's roll" Todd Beamer call.

Quote:Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners. His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.

Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,

“the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred…. [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”

The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.” In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet. A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports …that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.” Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-call...ners/16924


So what Occam's Razor should really tell you here is that the "Let's Roll" cellphone story is most likely fake. Your emotions on the other hand compel you to believe the patriotic hero narrative at face value. You didn't buy the F16 lady hero narrative here, because your rational feminism BS filter made you skeptical. There was no such filter with the bigger picture of Flight 93 and other 9/11 facts though...


*"Conspiracy theory" btw is a weaponized NLP tool developed by the CIA in the 1960s to keep the masses in line after the groundswell of disbelief that came with the Warren Commission.

Quote:“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Post: #32

(09-14-2017 11:13 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:52 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 08:18 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Consider giving your thread a better title.
This small topic seems a little too niche for its own thread.
How about a general September 11, 2001 discussion thread ?
You have an hour from original posting to change it.

Ugh...I didn't want this to turn into another 911 conspiracy nut job thread, but I might be too late....

(09-14-2017 03:14 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  Air defence fighters kept parked - never mind launched - without weapons? When strategic bombers are kept with nukes on board at all times and crews have just minutes to get airborne?

Correct - the entire article is bullshit.

The part about not storing fighters - especially not DC National Guard (read: part time weekend warrior aircraft that don't fly as much as active duty birds) without weapons is not bullshit. Any USAF bomb loader can tell you this - those planes were not kept with weapons at the ready. Commanders are extremely paranoid of accidents happening on their watch since that would endanger promotion potential - so no dice. Same deal with the National Guard troops that were propped up at airports all over the place right afterwards - they had no rounds in their magazines. Empty fucking weapons. Policy may have changed for the fighters and readiness posture, but if it did, I seriously doubt it is still that way over a decade later - paranoia about accidents sets in, commanders want to get their fourth star, etc. Not much changes in a bureaucracy.

I was in uniform when this happened. People who think there was a shoot down are smoking some serious crack. It did not happen that way - full stop. Even if it did and they wanted to cover it up, the US military is horrendously bad at keeping a secret that big - everyone involved from that unit, other branches, the FAA, civilian law enforcement agencies, right down to the enlisted Air Force bomb loader who had to update the inventory of whatever munitions were expended when the planes returned would know the truth and it would be out eventually.

Think of the USS Liberty - those sailers were ordered not to talk about what went down that day, but whaddya know, eventually they did. If you're waiting for something similar to come out of 911, you'll be disappointed.

There is no alternative history here.
No conspiracy.
No black helicopters.

Jesus, I pointed this article out for the whole female ego and participation trophy angle and I got an unexpected Truther eruption...

The article was complete BS, it has several layers of disinfo. Unfortunately, the only layer you have identified here is the woman pilot glorification angle.

The problem here is at the cognitive level. There are many people who cannot deal with the kind of cognitive dissonance that comes with seeing things as they really are. It doesn't matter if whistleblowers step up (and for 9/11, many have) because the majority of people are unable to view the facts from an unbiased, rational matter. In this case, the patriotic angle and strong emotions take over.

Not to get into a 9/11 debate, and just limiting the scope to this article alone, can you at the very least acknowledge that the picture of the alleged crash site used in that article has been staged to reinforce their narrative, given that the original footage and pictures taken right after the plane went down showed no tail part or plane debris at that spot?



picture used by the article




Picture from footage taken shortly after the plane went down, proving that the site as represented in the first picture above has been tampered with to push a fake narrative.

Once again:
https://youtu.be/IxDjOobmC8M?t=13s

Post: #33

Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

Post: #34

Seems like there should be a 9/11 thread now. So far some of the best material I've seen about 9/11 is Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic terror". A recommended read IMHO.

Post: #35

Best material I saw is this link here: https://isgp-studies.com/911 and one Italian made documentary which run for hours. Extremely well made and completely objective without ever placing blame on anyone, just asking and debunking official story. Sadly, I don't know the name.

Post: #36

(09-14-2017 01:45 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the aircraft tail and debris weren't there in the first place, the debris was gathered from the area, with crash zones several miles away, and arranged/staged at the alleged crash site. Debris fields as far away as 8 miles from the mine shaft site were sealed by the FBI and people were prevented from going there.

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Going strong Wrote:  Even if the Boeing was, possibly, shot down out of absolute and urgent necessity, it is still better for everyone, families included of course, to believe and enforce the official narrative. A rare occurrence where red-pilling is unnecessary, I'd say.

It would have been a white lie if the authorities had ordered the Boeing shot down, doing it for the greater good, and concealing this fact with the "Let's Roll" passengers fighting back narrative, resulting in the hijackers plowing the jet into the PA countryside.

There is however a much more troubling aspect to this, which makes this whole white lie scenario impossible: the staging for the site had to be prepared beforehand, with the open mine shaft spot selected in advance and prepared, torn up by an A-10 run (crater clearly visible -see video-, created by an A-10 spotted by local witnesses). The mine shaft site had a large, still smoldering crater in it.

The passenger jet had to be shot down very close to that spot, so its path had to be tightly controlled, which doesn't jibe with the saudi hijackers narrative...

Post: #37

For several years during that era, every airplane seat had a phone built into the headrest in front of you. You wouldn't call with your handheld phone back then, you'd use the one built into the airplane. It's funny no one remembers this and tries to argue that the signal wouldn't reach. That's like saying planes can't have wifi.

Post: #38

(09-14-2017 01:50 PM)brick tamland Wrote:  Seems like there should be a 9/11 thread now.

Post: #39

Aloha!

Post: #40

(09-14-2017 02:06 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  For several years during that era, every airplane seat had a phone built into the headrest in front of you. You wouldn't call with your handheld phone back then, you'd use the one built into the airplane. It's funny no one remembers this and tries to argue that the signal wouldn't reach. That's like saying planes can't have wifi.

According to the official record, there were several calls placed through cellphones from Flight 93, and not just through the backseat airphones, including one cellphone call that was supposedly made by a passenger from a locked bathroom (no airphones there... )

Passenger Tom Burnett supposedly placed 4 calls to his wife in San Ramon, CA, she recognized his cell number on her caller ID box:

Quote: In her own book, published in 2006, Deena Burnett described receiving the first of these calls from her husband at 9:27 a.m. on September 11: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number." Deena, who during the early 1990s had worked as a flight attendant for Delta Airlines, asked Tom: "Where are you? Are you in the air?" She commented in her book, "I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air." [6]

Later in the day of 9/11, Deena told the FBI that "only one" of the calls she'd received from her husband "did not show on the caller identification." The reason for this was simply that "she was on the line with another call" when it was made. Otherwise, she had been "able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone" on all his calls, "because the caller identification showed his number." [7]

Yet if cell phone calls like these would have been so unlikely from an aircraft in flight, what was really going on that morning? Was it just a "fluke" that these and other alleged passenger cell phone calls got through? Or, alternatively, might the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have been involved in a sinister and malicious deception, to make the victims' relatives mistakenly believe they had been called from the hijacked flights?

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-04-24/hu...work-plane

Post: #41

Female F-16 pilot...

Post: #42

(09-14-2017 01:58 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Best material I saw is this link here: https://isgp-studies.com/911 and one Italian made documentary which run for hours. Extremely well made and completely objective without ever placing blame on anyone, just asking and debunking official story. Sadly, I don't know the name.

Archer, I think that was "Zero", the doc made with Italian writer Dario Fo:

Post: #43

(09-14-2017 03:52 PM)blck Wrote:  Female F-16 pilot...

Shes probably known as @fightermom_314 or @bomber_babe or something similar.

Aloha!

Post: #44

(09-14-2017 02:03 PM)911 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:45 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the aircraft tail and debris weren't there in the first place, the debris was gathered from the area, with crash zones several miles away, and arranged/staged at the alleged crash site. Debris fields as far away as 8 miles from the mine shaft site were sealed by the FBI and people were prevented from going there.

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Going strong Wrote:  Even if the Boeing was, possibly, shot down out of absolute and urgent necessity, it is still better for everyone, families included of course, to believe and enforce the official narrative. A rare occurrence where red-pilling is unnecessary, I'd say.

It would have been a white lie if the authorities had ordered the Boeing shot down, doing it for the greater good, and concealing this fact with the "Let's Roll" passengers fighting back narrative, resulting in the hijackers plowing the jet into the PA countryside.

There is however a much more troubling aspect to this, which makes this whole white lie scenario impossible: the staging for the site had to be prepared beforehand, with the open mine shaft spot selected in advance and prepared, torn up by an A-10 run (crater clearly visible -see video-, created by an A-10 spotted by local witnesses). The mine shaft site had a large, still smoldering crater in it.

The passenger jet had to be shot down very close to that spot, so its path had to be tightly controlled, which doesn't jibe with the saudi hijackers narrative...

There was no white lie, no staging of any sites, the government didn't shoot down any planes, and it isn't unusual for crash sites to be roped off from the public during the investigation.

You may also want to take a closer look at that tail section - it is not from a Boeing 757. Flight 93 was a 757-200, which has a standard tail. That picture shows an aircraft with a T-tail, reportedly from a the crash of Vladivostok AIR Flight 352.

Please stop this.

Post: #45

Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

Post: #46

No matter how outrageous a conspiracy is (or how inrageous) the powers that be have established a fairly bulletproof system of eternally muddying the waters.

Simply carry out your operation and then seed a bunch of conspiracy theories that range from the realistic through to the ultra-ridiculous.

Is it possible that the 9/11 hijackers were traceable to the CIA?

I don't know. Ask the guys claiming there weren't any actual planes.

Post: #47

There's people out there supporting a "no plane" theory-?

Post: #48

(09-14-2017 06:26 PM)Repo Wrote:  Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

Exactly. If I omit contradicting evidence while pedaling half-truths, I could make a case for any theory.

One example is the moon theories that point out "nobody can survive deep space radiation." Then they fail to mention the fatal radiation damage that was done to lunar astronauts. The heart failure rate is four times higher in lunar astronauts than it is in low orbit astronauts and even NASA test pilots.

The rabbit hole of conspiracies gets tiresome. As soon as a conspiracy starts to lose steam, it is labeled as a false-flag conspiracy thus "legitimizing" another guy's conspiracy. Thus the conspiracy is that the conspiracy is a conspiracy in itself, built to either support or degrade another conspiracy.

Post: #49

From the link:

Quote:Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites.

Muddying the waters. This allows the counter-shills to insult serious investigators by tossing out "are you one of the 'no plane' guys?"

Post: #50

(09-14-2017 06:16 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:03 PM)911 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:45 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Occam's razor only means the more assumptions you make, the less likely the story is - and there's a shitload of tin foil hat what ifs in this one.

I've had the displeasure of seeing first hand military propaganda operations. Long story short, they often fuck up even the simplest of missions. The most recent example is here.

Most days they couldn't count their nuts twice and get the same number, let alone pull of some lurid "let's fake everybody out by getting rid of the tail of the aircraft!" number. Sorry, that's really all there is to it.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the aircraft tail and debris weren't there in the first place, the debris was gathered from the area, with crash zones several miles away, and arranged/staged at the alleged crash site. Debris fields as far away as 8 miles from the mine shaft site were sealed by the FBI and people were prevented from going there.

(09-13-2017 04:13 PM)Going strong Wrote:  Even if the Boeing was, possibly, shot down out of absolute and urgent necessity, it is still better for everyone, families included of course, to believe and enforce the official narrative. A rare occurrence where red-pilling is unnecessary, I'd say.

It would have been a white lie if the authorities had ordered the Boeing shot down, doing it for the greater good, and concealing this fact with the "Let's Roll" passengers fighting back narrative, resulting in the hijackers plowing the jet into the PA countryside.

There is however a much more troubling aspect to this, which makes this whole white lie scenario impossible: the staging for the site had to be prepared beforehand, with the open mine shaft spot selected in advance and prepared, torn up by an A-10 run (crater clearly visible -see video-, created by an A-10 spotted by local witnesses). The mine shaft site had a large, still smoldering crater in it.

The passenger jet had to be shot down very close to that spot, so its path had to be tightly controlled, which doesn't jibe with the saudi hijackers narrative...

There was no white lie, no staging of any sites, the government didn't shoot down any planes, and it isn't unusual for crash sites to be roped off from the public during the investigation.

You may also want to take a closer look at that tail section - it is not from a Boeing 757. Flight 93 was a 757-200, which has a standard tail. That picture shows an aircraft with a T-tail, reportedly from a the crash of Vladivostok AIR Flight 352.

Please stop this.

I guess the author of this article felt he had to post a picture of a real plane crash from Siberia, which had actual plane parts and debris, like all plane crash sites do, as opposed to the hapless craterred pile of dirt with no plane parts at Shanksville, PA. Because according to the official version, the Boeing 757 instantly disappeared upon impact. Supposedly, 85% of the plane burried itself in the ground and the rest of the plane hit the ground then bounced off up to 8 miles away.

There is no other passenger plane crash anywhere where planes completely vaporized... Yet another 9/11 singularity, like the 3 steel-structure skyscrapers that collapsed on their own footprint at near freefall speed because of a localized fire burning on a few floors for an hour or two.

The author placed that picture of the Siberian crash close to the picture of a PA barn and an explosion (presumably the plane crashing, though there is no fire from jetfuel visible, it looks like the mushroom cloud from a shell or a bomb), and just under the text "United 93 went down in Pennsylvania. Passengers aboard the plane fought back against the hijackers, and crashed in an isolated field.", suggesting that this was the actual PA crash photo.

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.