Re: Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:34 am
I took the plan pictures from a New York Times article which is rather interesting because it is a study on how the Baha'is misdirect. So whatever happened in that field on Sept. 11, 2001, all sources outside the official one and its henchmen agree a passenger jet did not crash in that field.
Now, I've just taken the minimum amount of data to formulate my theory, so there might be evidence that exists to prove the ideas in this thread wrong. Saying that, I don't believe these people ever set up hoaxes for no reason, they have a reason, then they create a false narrative to hide that reason. This is ALWAYS true. So for me, the lack of actual staging in Shanksville, the missing plane for Building 7 and the BBC reporting Building 7 collapsed before it happened means something did go wrong. We know there were official airforce manoeuvres that day, so we have another reason, by probability, to assume something military happened in that field that day causing the narrative that first Flight 93 was shot down, then probably because that story is bad optics, the more heroic, the passengers brought the plane down; which I always dismissed as utter nonsense. If you think about how much information anyone on a plane has, you don't know what the person directly in front of you is doing, never mind the pilot. And at that point in time there was no communication with the outside world when on a plane, any people in the air would have no clue of the events happening that day. Only in movies do the bad guys spill the beans before completing the plan.
Back to the article, we have bickering between relatives of the 40 victims. So we can read into this, the controllers are doing something they see as blatantly obvious, so they want to shift the blame to another party before anyone even looks at the evidence. They do this by having ONE OUTSPOKEN VOICE they can then shoot down. In doing this they CREATE THE BOX you are allowed to discuss and argue about, and they keep themselves outside that box so they are invisible. Because I looked at the site before this article, I know the architecture is in keeping with the other Baha'i shines, I know which cabal is responsible for the design, but let's look at the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/05memorial.html
HURTY WORDS...When you see it framed in those terms you know it is the NEW WORLD ORDER speaking. Though I do agree with the designer Mr Murdoch, there is no open or hidden Islamic symbolism in his design, it is instead completely Baha'i. But if we agree there is no evidence to suggest Flight 93 crashed in that field, then all THE VOICES above are fictional anyway. Unless you want to go with the theory that the plane landed safely, as reported on the day, and the people on it were escorted from it and then lined up against a wall and executed in order for them to have appeared to have died in that field. That is one actual possibility if some of these forty people were real people and died that day. I do not rule this out as an outlier, though the phone call part of the story tends to go against this because the family has to be in on the deception. But do you see the framing of the story to subconsciously attack ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY, the actual TWIN TOWERS that block the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Now, I've just taken the minimum amount of data to formulate my theory, so there might be evidence that exists to prove the ideas in this thread wrong. Saying that, I don't believe these people ever set up hoaxes for no reason, they have a reason, then they create a false narrative to hide that reason. This is ALWAYS true. So for me, the lack of actual staging in Shanksville, the missing plane for Building 7 and the BBC reporting Building 7 collapsed before it happened means something did go wrong. We know there were official airforce manoeuvres that day, so we have another reason, by probability, to assume something military happened in that field that day causing the narrative that first Flight 93 was shot down, then probably because that story is bad optics, the more heroic, the passengers brought the plane down; which I always dismissed as utter nonsense. If you think about how much information anyone on a plane has, you don't know what the person directly in front of you is doing, never mind the pilot. And at that point in time there was no communication with the outside world when on a plane, any people in the air would have no clue of the events happening that day. Only in movies do the bad guys spill the beans before completing the plan.
Back to the article, we have bickering between relatives of the 40 victims. So we can read into this, the controllers are doing something they see as blatantly obvious, so they want to shift the blame to another party before anyone even looks at the evidence. They do this by having ONE OUTSPOKEN VOICE they can then shoot down. In doing this they CREATE THE BOX you are allowed to discuss and argue about, and they keep themselves outside that box so they are invisible. Because I looked at the site before this article, I know the architecture is in keeping with the other Baha'i shines, I know which cabal is responsible for the design, but let's look at the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/05memorial.html
Critics See Symbols of Islam in Flight 93 Memorial Design
By SEAN D. HAMILL
May 5, 2008
SOMERSET, Pa. As envisioned by its designer, the memorial to the victims who died on Sept. 11, 2001, when United Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pa., would follow the topography of the bowl-shaped land, creating a circular pathway ringed by trees, all focused on the “sacred ground” of the crash site near the bottom of the circle.
But almost from the moment the winning entry for the memorial was chosen in 2005 over 1,058 others it has been beset by controversy, most of it coming from critics who see Islamic symbolism in the design.
The critics complain that the shape of the memorial designed by Paul Murdoch, an architect based in Los Angeles is an Islamic crescent, that a wind-chime tower mirrors an Islamic minaret and that the memorial would point east toward the Islamic holy city of Mecca.
The complaints gained traction recently because Tom Burnett Sr., the father of a Flight 93 victim, has become one of the most prominent opponents.
“It’s really revolting to me, this whole thing,” said Mr. Burnett, a retired high school English teacher from Northfield, Minn. “It’s an insult to my son and all the others.”
On Saturday, five people told members of the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force and the Flight 93 Advisory Committee that the design should be scrapped because of what they saw as Islamic symbolism. One of those speakers, Harry Beam, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, presented petitions with 5,300 signatures opposing the design to members of the Flight 93 boards, who were holding a quarterly meeting.
Mr. Beam, from Johnstown, Pa., had helped Mr. Burnett and others collect the signatures. The opponents are hoping to persuade members of Congress to investigate or to try to generate enough public support to stall or stop the project.
Mr. Beam, who has no direct connection to Flight 93, told the boards that his father died earlier in the day but that he attended the meeting anyway to demonstrate how strongly he, and others, feel about the issue.
“They all believe there’s no place for Islamic symbolism or anything that would elevate the status of the terrorists,” Mr. Beam said.
Mr. Murdoch, the designer, said in an interview Sunday that there was no open or hidden Islamic symbolism in his design, which has widespread support among many relatives of the Flight 93 victims.
“The forms that the design uses come out of the forms of the land,” Mr. Murdoch said. “The framing of that space is like a large-scale embrace, on a scale commensurate of the heroic acts of the people who died there.”
Mr. Murdoch said he was not troubled by the design’s opponents because “that’s someone else’s distraction.”
Sandra Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on Flight 93, said she could not fathom why people continued to see Islamic symbolism in the design.
“The land speaks for itself,” she said. “It’s in the shape of an embrace.”
After initial complaints, the original design title, “Crescent of Embrace,” was changed to “Circle of Embrace.” Trees were also added to the plans to encircle the site and not leave a gap that created a crescent.
Ms. Felt told board members on Saturday that she strongly disagreed with the sentiment of the design critics.
“Wow. Such hate. I’m shocked,” she said, her voice choked with emotion. “When you insult the place and inflame events, I want you to know you hurt us, too.”
Memorial officials say that Mr. Burnett, and his wife, Beverly, are the only family members of victims who have spoken out against the design.
Despite the sentiments of Mr. Burnett and others, memorial officials said that they would move ahead with their plans, and that they still intended to have the $58 million first phase of the design completed by the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11.
HURTY WORDS...When you see it framed in those terms you know it is the NEW WORLD ORDER speaking. Though I do agree with the designer Mr Murdoch, there is no open or hidden Islamic symbolism in his design, it is instead completely Baha'i. But if we agree there is no evidence to suggest Flight 93 crashed in that field, then all THE VOICES above are fictional anyway. Unless you want to go with the theory that the plane landed safely, as reported on the day, and the people on it were escorted from it and then lined up against a wall and executed in order for them to have appeared to have died in that field. That is one actual possibility if some of these forty people were real people and died that day. I do not rule this out as an outlier, though the phone call part of the story tends to go against this because the family has to be in on the deception. But do you see the framing of the story to subconsciously attack ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY, the actual TWIN TOWERS that block the NEW WORLD ORDER.