Flight 93, the Movie, disinfo?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
And I am quoting "Vitality" newspaper out of Cape Cod so there are no links*




American Airlines and QUALCOMM showcased their strength as technology pioneers and market leaders in their respective industries" said Dan Garton, exec vp of marketing for American Airlines. "American is committed to researching and providing innovative, cutting edge products and services that enhance our passengers' traveling experience and give our customers what they value. Eventhough commercial availability of cell phone use in flight is approximately 24 months away., American knows that our customers want to stay connected and this proof-of-concept is an important step in bringing in-cabin wireless services to our customers."

On July 15, 2004, Qualcomm issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would FINALLY MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE CELLULAR PHONE CALLS FROM COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS,, USING A TECHNOLOGY CALLED pICO CELLS.
They went on to say that it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet.

Deena Burnett, widow of flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on Sep 11, all of which were received from his cell phone, and one call lasted 13 minutes. FAA had stated that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its sudden fatal plunge.


Its impossible to harmonize the two stories . If it is already to use a cell phone on a plane, why is QUALCOMM so darn excited about their "Pico Chip"?




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
.... The statement that one engine was found a distance away from the aircraft tends to support the theory that the aircraft broke up during a fight for control of the plane.


i had the show/movie on...although i did not sit and watch but mostly listened or caught a glimpse, now & then, as i went about my routines around the house.

there was one scene i did happen to see..
...which was when the hijacked aircraft was shown flying in an inverted position, and only hundreds of feet above a farmers residence & enterprise...and just seconds before the crash/explosion

from this scene it is implied that both engines were powering the craft,
the craft was not flying as it was designed...but in the last10-20 seconds
engines or wings may have fallen off before the single explosion.

I infer that poetic license or creative writing was not the driving force for this scene portrayal...it 'seems' the (movie) event was witnessed by the farmer himself, and the visual was a recreation of what the farmer saw that day.....
but, this might actually be part of the disinformation juggernaut

?
( portrayal is such a hard word to spell correctly )
[edit on 12-2-2006 by St Udio]

[edit on 12-2-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This is a list of facts regarding the crash that I have read from various places. Correct me if I am wrong on some of them.

1. In-flight magazines were falling out of the sky several miles from the main crash site.
2. Engines and other parts were found at varying distances from the main crash site.
3. Cheney ordered Flight 93 shot down several times.
4. One of the passengers, allegedly calling from the bathroom, reported a loud explosion and white smoke, then the call disconnected.

So that's my evidence that the plane was shot down. Feel free to counter my claims and compile your own list of reasons it was not shot down.

Oh, and I never bought the theory that they unloaded people from the planes and all that. But the theory that it was shot down works still whether the government was involved in 9/11 or not.

If the government was behind 9/11... they either had hijackers they had gotten onto the airplanes or some sort of remote flying devices attached. Either way, if Flight 93 were to be overtaken by the passengers and landed safely, the evidence would not be destroyed and would be very incriminating for the government. Thus it would be shot down.

If the government was not behind 9/11... then there was a hijacked airliner flying towards Washington D.C. shortly after three other hijacked airliners had crashed into other buildings. The logical conclusion being that Flight 93 was going to hit another building in Washington. So the logical reaction would be to do what they failed to do for the other flights and shoot it down.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Here's some usefull info for some sheeple out there.


If it's on mainstream TV it's most likely dis-information since the illuminati/nwo owns most of these TV networks.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by JIMC5499


As far as Flight 93 being shot down, I don't think it was. It would have been too hard to keep secret. I went on Google Earth and looked for the crash site. Believe it or not I was able to find it. It is alot smaller than I would have thought.


I agree with you. If they had shot the plane down the aircraft would have been spread all over the place which was not the case.

Look at the 747 over Lockerbie (sp) it was blown up and the wreckage was spread out for miles, that alone shows the aircraft was not shot down.



I am sorry to say this but Rumsfeld/Cheney themselves said on live tv the plane was SHOT DOWN if you want I will try to find the CNN video clip of it for you.

I do belive the real plane was diverted to logan airport

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Cade Foster]





new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join