So much about the terror attacks of 9/11 have been the subject of debate throughout the years, there doesn't seem to be many details left to argue. Were the towers brought down in controlled demolitions, was there actually a missile that hit the Pentagon and so many other aspects of the story have been the topic of controversy and the source for heated disagreement for over a decade.
After all, with so many extremely important liberties taken from Americans (“Patriot” Act, NDAA) in the wake of a tragedy that also became the springboard for the launch of the War on “Terror” and the invasion of multiple countries having nothing to do with the attacks (PNAC), a situation that still rages on to this day, many still find it just as important as any other topic in the news. Especially if what we were told about what happened that day isn't necessarily what actually happened.
Strangely, with even those that served on the 9/11 Commission themselves agreeing, in various ways, with the need for an alternative investigation that can be seen as truly independent, most of the evidence that would definitively prove one way or another and would solve many or most of those disagreements was either destroyed or is classified and unable to be accessed for some period of time.
But with most of the topic of discussion naturally centering around what transpired where weapon (airplanes, allegedly) successfully met target (WTC bldg. 1 & 2 and the Pentagon) and the mysteriously delayed collapse of a virtually undamaged building 7 that afternoon (accidentally reported as having collapsed over 20 minutes early by the BBC), the story that was to unfold as the official version of the fate of flight 93 can be frequently found on the back burner.
That doesn't mean however that what happened to flight 93 isn't just as important as any other aspect of what transpired that day. Even an establishment version of the events, surrounding what happened to flight 93, was made into a movie, glorifying the alleged heroism of passengers that supposedly helped avert further destruction, sacrificing themselves in the process.
But not everybody is sold on that being the way things went down and for good reason. To those still trying to figure out what happened, beyond the original official story, despite Hollywood's attempt to cement the establishment's version of the fate of flight 93 into the American subconscious, a lot of evidence exists suggesting things didn't necessarily happen the way “they” want us to believe.
One of those circumstances has to do with whether or not flight 93 took a nosedive into the earth, as described by the 9/11 Commission, or whether it was it actually blown out of the sky by a military aircraft, as one of the more common alternative beliefs contends.
One of the many reasons so-called 9/11 “truthers” aren’t sold on the plane simply disappearing into the hole it left, after allegedly taking a nosedive into the earth, is because of local news reports that day detailing a 6-8 mile debris field radius. If, in fact, the plane took a nosedive and completely buried itself into the ground, as the government and its media contend, there's no way the wreckage could have been found so far away.
The existing evidence and some eyewitness testimony obviously suggests the plane was blown out the the sky, contrary to popular (aka, establishment) opinion.
Ironically, while everyone was paying attention to Rand Paul's filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as the Director of the CIA Wednesday, a Justice Dept. oversight, Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was taking place as well and Attorney General Eric Holder happened to be the main event.
As if there wasn't already enough evidence to argue against the official version of flight 93's story in particular, Holder added fuel to the fire and gave those in disagreement even more of a reason to doubt it during his testimony.
Because Rand Paul was filibustering to prevent Brennan's nomination, until Holder's Justice Dept. would agree that drones would never be used to kill an American citizen on US soil, especially one that didn't present an imminent threat, 9/11 became a natural topic because Holder sent a letter to Paul the day before, referencing 9/11 as one of the only situations he could see where the use of drones against Americans on American soil could be deemed reasonable.
Although that didn't seem to be enough to satisfy Rand Paul, considering he started and old fashioned, standing filibuster the next day that ended up lasting over 13 hours, it seemed to be enough for Senator Graham, as that became the center-point of Graham's (R-SC) argument against Paul's (R-KY) filibuster.
At one point during the allotment of time Graham had to “question” Holder about department affairs, Graham praised Holder's letter to Paul and Holder's stance on 9/11 being a reasonable example of potential domestic drone usage.
That's the moment during the conversation with Graham that Holder took the opportunity to praise the White House's “tough” decision to issue the military action on US citizens (aka, the shoot-down order) during the 9/11/01 terror attacks, the real reason for the abrupt and premature ending to flight 93.
Holder: “The situation that you describe on September the 11th was among the most difficult decisions that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to make, to give that order... But I think it was appropriate.” (see the clip here)
But this isn't the only time official testimony reveals that flight 93 seems to have been shot down, rather than the fairy tale version given by the establishment.
During the actual 9/11 commission hearings, between 2003 and 2004, it was then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's under-oath testimony that totally concurs with Holder's more recent assertion that flight 93 and its passengers were just as much a victim of the military, in this case, as they ever were of circumstance.
Subscribe to: Automatic Conspiracy Examiner updates!
Visit these related pages: