WING TV on Flight 93

Approaching Infinity

FOTCM Member
[Title should read Flight 93, not 83]

Seeing as how the discussion on Rense has involved Jones' and Rense's censorship of material related to Lisa Luliani and Victor Thorn, what does everyone think of their Flight 93 theory?

a missile was actually fired into the ground at Shanksville, while Flight 93 (or something purporting to be Flight 93) was shot down over Indian Lake, Pa. and crash landed in New Baltimore, Pa.
I bought and read their book on the towers' controlled demolition (9/11 on Trial) and, while I didn't think the format was great, it pointed out many of the absurdities of the towers' collapse. I have not read their latest book, but I plan on ordering it soon.

Here's what they have to say about their book:

Flight 93 Hoax: SOLVED

Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax puts forth an extremely convincing argument that Flight 93 did not meet its demise in Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of September 11, 2001, but was instead shot down by U.S. military forces and subsequently crash landed in the rural hamlet of New Baltimore, Pa., 6-8 miles away from where the government alleges this event took place. Furthermore, to create a massive diversionary site to draw attention away from the actual wreckage in New Baltimore, a missile was fired into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville, Pa. - the result of this ordnance blast being a 200-foot mushroom cloud and an 8-10 foot deep crater, but absolutely no airplane wreckage whatsoever. In other words, while the media's attention was focused on Shanksville, the actual debris from Flight 93 was clandestinely being scuttled away from New Baltimore, Pa., which had been immediately cordoned-off by the FBI and local State Police.

Also included in Phantom Flight 93:

- First-hand eyewitness testimony of a missile being launched into Shanksville, which resulted in a massive hoax and cover-up being perpetrated on the American people.
- Claims that emergency rooms in Shanksville were originally notified to be prepared for victims from TWO separate airplane crash sites.
- The emergence of three (or more) wreckage-debris sites in Southwest Pennsylvania, not simply one as the government alleges.
- Irrefutable evidence that there was NO plane at Shanksville, but instead Flight 93 (or something purporting to be Flight 93) actually crash landed in New Baltimore, Pa.
- Admissions by the Department of Defense based on seismographic data that the government blatantly lied about its Flight 93 timeline.
- 9-11 Deconstructed: What Went Wrong - how the real devils behind 9-11 blew it - a list of six major tactical blunders that allowed researchers to expose the lies of this horrific event, along with a brief history of other failed examples of state-sponsored terrorism, including OKC, the USS Liberty, and WTC '93.
- The Evil 13: 9-11 Master-Minds named by name, along with their nefarious dossiers!
- 9-11 Passenger List oddities, including the mystery of Todd and Lisa Beamer
- Plus gag orders, faked cell phone calls, human remains found at Indian Lake marina, a confession that the U.S. military shot down a plane on the morning of 9-11, and much more.

Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax completely shreds the government's 'official' version of events, and reveals that something far more sinister occurred near Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of 9-11 than was ever revealed to the American public.


Is there a plausible set of evidence presented surrounding the New Baltimore crash site?

What is it that is "irrefutable" about that?

Approaching Infinity

FOTCM Member
MaskedAvatar said:
Is there a plausible set of evidence presented surrounding the New Baltimore crash site?

What is it that is "irrefutable" about that?
Well, a quick search found this, at

"Eight miles away in New Baltimore, Melanie Hankinson said she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine. Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.

Did Flight 93 Crash Near New Baltimore?

From Shanksville, the official crash site for flight 93...

"The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.

"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.

For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.

"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner."

(emphasis added)

This story would seem to support the idea that the plane crashed in New Baltimore or was damaged very close to New Baltimore. There is no way that so much debris blew eight miles specifically into her yard. EIGHT MILES is a long way on the weak wind that day.

This fellow says that Flight 93 was going the opposite way from the official story before it crashed, after the passengers regained control, and that it was shot by air force interceptors initially over New Baltimore. His scenario fits the debris field (another major debris field was Indian Lake, three miles from the official crash site), but I don't buy his "semi-official" interpretation of the flight 93 story (with the evil hijackers and heroic passengers), as the phone calls of flight 93 are just too bizarre, and the Shanskville crater still doesn't add up. Nonetheless, it is worth considering that the plane was going the other way and was shot by fighters.

But to make things more confusing, this article places plane debris half a mile to one mile north of the official crash site. So, what direction WAS the wind blowing that day?

It is hard for me to figure out what really happened, if there were two planes, if fake debris was scattered or something even stranger.
So, while it doesn't seem any hard evidence of the plane crash was found, the presence of light debris could fit the "shot down" hypothesis. The official account is that the debris was carried by a light breeze...


Thank you.

The Birds' "Eight Miles High" was nice, but it doesn't refer to the awesome power of a "light breeze" wafting debris for eight miles.

It would also appear to be a mammoth (and unpopular) task to bring together the debris of all accounts of events outside the "official" propaganda on 9/11.


The Living Force
hkoehli said:
So, while it doesn't seem any hard evidence of the plane crash was found, the presence of light debris could fit the "shot down" hypothesis. The official account is that the debris was carried by a light breeze...
It seems to me that there would be many factors influencing this plane to crash. Some of them might be:

1. At what height was the aircraft shot down, if it was shot down. ie. the higher the aircraft at the time of the incident, the larger area the wreckage will cover. Possibly more so, if the pieces were both small and light.

2. If it was shot down, what weapon was used? ie. air-to-air missile, ground-to-air missile (may not be feasable for aircraft at certain heights) But what would I know, I'm not an expert in military hardware!

3. If there was a bomb on board that detonated, does the wreakage of this plane have any similarities with other plane wreckages brought down in a similar manner. The US government is now saying 'bomb', or at least the release of the cockpit recordings are saying that.

I have a suspicion that a military air-to-air missile would cause significantly more damage than either a bomb on board or a bunch of guys waving around box cutters. I would imagine that such a weapon is absolutely 'designed' to blow things to smithereens. The fact is, not enough investigation into the air crash has happened by the people who are supposed to do these things. Or, am I wrong here? Where is their report, or is it classified? Its infinately harder to lie than it is to tell the truth. Easier to cover something up and bury it in secrecy. Why haven't professional air crash investigators been called in?

It seems from a brief search of the internet that the FBI is running the investigation, not the National Transportation Safety Board.

The FBI shouldn't be investigating 9/11. You couldn't get a bigger bunch of criminals together if you tried! Unless they were intelligence service (foreign ones included) or certain neo-con supporters. They're just not transparent enough.


"You couldn't get a bigger bunch of criminals together if you tried!"


1. CIA
2. Bush family
3. Bush administration
4. Carlyle Group
5. Ohio or Florida electoral commissions


Re: SAM's and altitude, prior to the Iraq invasion 2003, U2 flights were suspended due to possible 'flight interefence from SAM which could reach 100,000ft (over twice the altitude of most normal air traffic)'. I would tend to discount the SAM theory due to the noise/smoke-flame produced which would draw atttention to itself. The most likely options which would draw the least attention from ground observers would be a air launched missile from a similar/higher altitude to reduce the attention being drawn away from the airline or a bomb onboard. Both would result in a large scattering of wreckage with a minmal amount of pieces becoming embedded in the ground. For the latter it maybe worthwhile examining the Lockerbie disaster which involved a bomb onboard exploding at altitude and the resulting spread of wreckage. (PS: allegedly a Libyan was behind it although evidence points towards somebody else wanting to engineer a situation where the public's opinion could be moved against Libya/Islam or more recently because allegedly somebody was using Pan-am to smuggle copious amounts of drugs (another red herring?) and it had to be prevented from entering the public domain.


The "cell phone calls" are particularly bizarre.

Until the introduction of a device known as the "Pico cell", which was patented in 2005, in flight cell phone calls were simply not possible.

As an aside, the industry is concerned about airborne cell phone etiquette now that cell phone calls may now be made in flight. One would expect that this brouhaha would focus attention on the fact that such calls were not possible five years ago, in 2001.

Which means that the "cell phone calls" were studio productions.


The Living Force
I dont think it crashed at all. I mean, we're dealing with a riddle wrapped in an enigma so they might have actually shot down a smaller plane over New Baltimore AND Shot a missile into the ground in shanksville. It's possible that the plane also landed in chicago. I should do some fact checking on that last one, but its the theory i've perscribed to thus far.

Infact, id go as far to say all the planes were landed, emptied, and drones flew into the "targets". That gives the Secret Gov't ~ 300 more people to experiment with.


I can think of a few places in the world where plucking people for experimentation or whatever might go unnoticed if that's what they wanted to do, and that's assuming they don't have access to a "supply" already, so why would they go to all that trouble. Of course, it might be the case that the presence of certain individuals on the flights was planned.

In short, where's the beef in the theory that Flight 93 landed?
Top Bottom