alexjones4president (October 8, 2008 at 5:29 am)

"Nothing there but a hole in the ground""Nothing that you could distinguish a plane had crashed there"I`m afraid the blown up grass is a staged event to cover up the fact that Flight 93 was shot down. Hence the 3-4 mile debri field. This proves the "lets roll" story is a farce. More lies to cover up the truth. Kinda like fire brought down WTC 7. Cough Cough...BULLSHIT.

alexjones4president (October 8, 2008 at 5:20 am)

You`re a fraud Chris. Thanks for avoiding the questions.

cchris874 (October 8, 2008 at 5:01 am)

alexjones4.Kilndly tell us why the government wanted to have grass blown up in that spot, and not some other spot.

cchris874 (October 8, 2008 at 4:59 am)

"If Flight 93 nose dived in Shanksville and somehow evaporated upon impact within that empty hole in the ground, how the hell can a debri field reach 3-4 miles out?"Because it didn't evaporate."Also, if this plane evaporated in that same empty hole, how can the official report claim they somehow recovered 95% of Flight 93?"Because it didn't evaporate.

alexjones4president (October 8, 2008 at 4:57 am)

Chris...I would like your explanation on the questions below.If Flight 93 nose dived in Shanksville and somehow evaporated upon impact within that empty hole in the ground, how the hell can a debri field reach 3-4 miles out?Also, if this plane evaporated in that same empty hole, how can the official report claim they somehow recovered 95% of Flight 93?Please answer these questions for us. Thank you.

brian78045 (October 8, 2008 at 4:40 am)

There are four interesting articles on NORAD at DNotice (org). They are "The NORAD Papers", "The NORAD Papers II", "The NORAD Papers III" and The NORAD Papers IV. The last article (for the first time!) explains the mechanics of how NORAD radar operators monitored and identified aircraft flying over American airspace.

cchris874 (October 8, 2008 at 4:12 am)

"but i absolutely believe they shot down Flight 93"Doubtful IMO the government would cover up the shoot down of flight 93 just to promote an utterly irrelevant human drama. It was hardly necessary for anything. Remember, it was the government that released the evidence that showed none of the 93 passengers made it in to the cockpit. Surely, if the hero story were so important, they wouldn't have released the CVR and come out with this conclusion.

PvtGermanWagz (October 8, 2008 at 3:34 am)

I don't believe the conspiracy that our government had something to do with the hijacked planes or the rigging the WTC, but i absolutely believe they shot down Flight 93, and came up with that retarded story about heroism of passangers fight the terrorists cause at the time we needed an uplifting story to help us through a hard time. I think since enough time has passed that they should freakin admit it already, we can handle the truth....

BoomBoomAbby (October 8, 2008 at 3:05 am)

If Flight 93 nose dived in Shanksville and somehow evaporated upon impact within that empty hole in the ground, how the hell can a debri field reach 3-4 miles out?Also, if this plane evaporated in that same empty hole, how can the official report claim they somehow recovered 95% of Flight 93?Please answer these questions for us. Thank you.

cchris874 (October 8, 2008 at 2:39 am)

"But...still, it doesn't look like a airline crash site either. Do you not agree?" Not a typical one certainly. But 93 wasn't a typical crash. There are but a handful of steep very high speed impacts in the history of airplane crashes. They look far different then you're average plane wreck. One example is Northwest flight 710. The entire fuselage disappeared beneath the ground. Investigators had never seen anything like it before. As with F93, there were also no bodies.