Micheal Bronner On the Flight 93 "shoot down"

[mirandapriestly]

On the Diane Rehms show, although they had a stand-in for her, a caller asks about Flight93 being shot down and this is basically what he says, they don't have a transcript so I am paraphrasing:
He says it could not have been shot down because he saw the "radar data" and there was a "solid plane" in a "vertical dive". Then he says the military didn't even know about the plane til after it "crashed" because you can hear them say "do we have shoot down authority?, do we have shoot down authority?" and then "negative" . You can hear the interview yourself at

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/03.php#11705

and this portion is around 38:00. Opinions?


(the words in quotes were his, I didn't necessarily phrase it the same, because there is no written transcript, but I believe I got it right, you can listen to it yourself.)

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Bronner also was a producer of the film 'Flight 93'

He was also in the CBS Newsroom on the morning of 9-11. This fellow really gets around.

He was trying to do his best to convince us that despite all the failures, no one was really at fault. He refuses to consider that anyone on the inside did anything deliberately.

[mirandapriestly]

4. Yes , which doesn't really make him a "flight" expert

and the director had worked with MI5 before so I think that was propaganda and I think that this is propaganda. Who is he to be making these kinds of decisions? Like deciding whether or not is was a coincidence that there were drills on the same day (his reasoning for that is he listened to a lot of tapes - well, so what? An atc called into Randi Rhodes show and said they did not release the tapes that were at the time of the so alleged "hijacking" so we don't even have anything until after the so called incident took place.)

He ALSO made light of the fact that an FAA official had thrown ATC tapes in the garbage cans! by saying they weren't "important" tapes. This guy is a real lulu.

[savemefromdumbya]

2. what if Flight 93 never existed

[mirandapriestly]

5. Well, it looks to me like it wasn't

near Shanksville, anyway. I think that they dumped debris over the area, personally. Another plane flew to that spot and then they turned off the transponder , then it dumped debris all over the area, something like that, because I've looked at a lot of pictures of plane crashes and they don't look like that. Wasn't there no jet fuel found on the ground? I mean, it's ridiculous, I read they still won't let people into the area, makes no sense...
I think the shoot down story is what they are trying to make look like is the "conspiracy theory" , rather than there wasn't a flight 93 there...

[screembloodymurder]

6. I read that the coroner said he couldn't find any blood

"not one drop" at the crash site.

[Artdyst]

8. Is it fair to call the coroner "incompetent" for not

wearing his prescription eyeglasses whenever he visited the site (and what it sight it was - a large explosion is set off there and fools a lot of people into thinking that what actually happened is a large airliner crashed there). That coroner is a country bumpkin. Why would he expect to find blood in a pit at a remote place where an explosion was set off? Fool.

[mirandapriestly]

3. But you can't see an airplane as though it was a photograph

on a radar screen. Isn't it just the transponder information? If it were "shot down", it wouldn't show it "exploding" would it? I don't know if San Fransisco uses the same kind of radar screen, but you can't tell from this, I mean if a plane was shot down the little plane graphic would just stop moving....So is this bronner guy lying?
http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/

[LSK]

7. I can go around claiming to see "radar data" too

Why should anyone believe me thou without me being able to provide you with a way to see this data?