It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, and this is the biggest 9/11 cover up of them all.

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
JIMC5499,

Thanks.

I found the photo I posted at the link below. I was looking for one that would show the rear tail surfaces and aft mounted engines.

A-10

I can't blame other members for ignoring me, I can be rough as a cob sometimes.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The estimate the aircraft was going 500-600 mph. This means that is covers 8- 10 miles on a minute, roughly so....


Witness states that there was a boom just prior to the crash. This would indicate the first debris field, 8 miles or so from impact may have been the attempt with a missle that failed. In a second pass, could they have atttemped to take out the cockpit, riddled it with 20 mm rounds and then loss of the plane took place.

It has lost one engine, and now peppering the cockpit kills whoever is in there and there is no compensation for the lost engine. Then it rolls over, and plunges straight into the ground.

The above scenario is obtainable in 60 seconds or less. I know it is pretty simplified, but truth is stranger than fiction.

Remeber, there was also a small Cessna, who pilot was asked if he could see the plane to verify location, and then was 'immediatley' told to leave the area.

He is in no fear of bieng struck by the aircraft, but he would have been a witness so he is asked to move away "after" verifying where Flight 93 is.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Must admit that this is the first Ive heard this, that a pilot was actually given an award for downing Flt93 with two sidewinder missiles. Has anyone else heard of this or able to add anything to it? Im really not sure what to think or believe of it, however I've posted the links as this thread is about Flt 93 being shot down.

www.rense.com...
www.nhalliance.org...
www.letsroll911.org...

The second link is sort of a long read, a congressional meeting.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Just a thought?
Could the boom that was heard have possibly one of the engines malfunctioning due to something that the passengers did while possibly trying to get control of the plane?

Maybe they accidentally "overrevved" and blew one of the engines while trying to slow the plane down or something. I don't know.

Is such a thing even possible?



[edit on 24/3/06 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Remeber, there was also a small Cessna, who pilot was asked if he could see the plane to verify location, and then was 'immediatley' told to leave the area.

He is in no fear of bieng struck by the aircraft, but he would have been a witness so he is asked to move away "after" verifying where Flight 93 is.


The Cessna pilot may have also been told to get the hell out of there so that he wouldn't be painted by radar in case someone was trying a long range missile shot.

No I haven't changed my mind. I don't think that Flight 93 was shot down. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
NO EVIDENCE, so lets let those poor folk rest in peace !



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Ahhh...the old emotional arguement. Works everytime. Except on here friend. Let's let them rest in peace by getting the truth of their murders first ok?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Thats really some contribution to a serious thread such as this, just what are you looking for Primary? Or maybe you might contribute to the thread with some evidence.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primary Mover
NO EVIDENCE, so lets let those poor folk rest in peace !


pffffft...exactly how could we prevent them from doing anything but that? What an utterly irrational statement to make.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
working from esdad's post:

is it not possible that the boom heard when the aircraft was 8 miles from the crash site could have been a sonic boom from the aircraft entering a condition of overspeed as it plummeted toward the ground? overspeed would have caused structural failure and could explain the debris field. just a thought.

oh, and i love the idiot from the anti-america site who talks about how horrible it is that our country's defense is being trusted to weekend warriors who only do it as a hobby. guess he's too ignorant to realize that even our "weekend warrior" fighter pilots get more yearly combat training than most country's regular airforces. forget the fact that they represent something like fifty percent of combat sorties in overseas combat.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Check out tracers links... (except for Rense of course)

It is right out of the congressional record... and leaves only a little to the imagination...

I think we can see an interesting comment regarding the Happy Holligans (F16 Squad) that were dispatched to "shoot down" any hijacked planes on 9-11.
It speaks clearly in stating, that they were not in time to save the pentagon, or the towers, but then goes on to praise them for all there efforts and accomplishments (that cant be commented on due to national security)
it never mentions any interaction with flight 93 though...

quote: "they were very much in harms way" was an enlightening comment, and takes us to a place where we can assume a few things justifiably.

There was absolutely a shoot down order given!

there were f16s in the air trying to shoot the hijacked plane down

the question (to me) remains... did they get there in time to do so,
or was it another plane with EMP weapons?
or was it just a plane crash, that happened to cause the cell tower to go out from ??? (got no idea)



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   


is it not possible that the boom heard when the aircraft was 8 miles from the crash site could have been a sonic boom from the aircraft entering a condition of overspeed as it plummeted toward the ground? overspeed would have caused structural failure and could explain the debris field. just a thought.


I didn't think they were sonic booms from the jets, but the explosions from the missle or engine if fired upon. This would explain the begin of a debris field, and it would also explain why the 'pilot' suddenly turned and was flying 'evasivly'. Did he see the American F-16 and was unsure what to do?

These poor people are resting in peace. The passengers and crew of that aircraft were put through a hell none of us would hope to ever experience. I hope to god that they killed at least one of the terrorists on that plane before they unwillingly gave thier lives.


This is a thread to try to come to a conclusion on whether this is a true cover up, or all coincidence. Whenever I see someone new in a senstive thread such as this, I want to know where they can from, since it all screams disinfo.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

I didn't think they were sonic booms from the jets, but the explosions from the missle or engine if fired upon. This would explain the begin of a debris field, and it would also explain why the 'pilot' suddenly turned and was flying 'evasivly'. Did he see the American F-16 and was unsure what to do?


could be. i am absolutely convinced that 93 was brought down by the military, but i'm wavering between an actual "shootdown" by conventional means, some kind of an EMP weapon, or a combination of electronic jamming and conventional weapons. if it was an EMP, then the debris could have been caused by structural failure from the sudden loss of aircraft control, or the aircraft breaking up from overspeed. otherwise, it would have to have been from the missile or gunshot.

i agree with valhall that it was absolutely the right call and had i been in position to make it, i would have given the same order. as to whether or not the american people should have been told the whole truth, i havent quite decided upon.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
the only reason I would disagree with the EMP weapon, is the Cessna and the business jet in the area. I know most military craft are enginnered for EMP but are civilian craft? This would be interesting to investigate those 2 aircraft and service logs. Would they have been in the range?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
the only reason I would disagree with the EMP weapon, is the Cessna and the business jet in the area. I know most military craft are enginnered for EMP but are civilian craft? This would be interesting to investigate those 2 aircraft and service logs. Would they have been in the range?



Funny thing is that aircraft are not really affected by EMP. What EMP does is to put out energy on many different frequencies. An antennae works by pulling in energy of a specific frequency, usually radio or television waves containing the desired signal. The waves usually generate energy in the millivolt and milliamp range that the device uses. When EMP hits those millivolt and milliamp signals become signals in the volt and amp range. This overloads the device. It is this overload that causes the damage. Aircraft are usually not damaged because they are not grounded. This is the same reason why planes are not usually damaged by lightning.
When I stated that I felt that the crash of Flight 93 may have been caused by jamming, I was referring to the loss of instruments such as the radar altimeter and navigation instruments. The reason that the bizjet and the Cessna were not affected is simple. The pilots of the bizjet are trained to fly without instruments and the Cessna probably didn't have instruments that were affected. I have simplified this explaination alot but it is correct.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead

What i think makes it believable though, is that if this was 'false flag' attack
the Airforce has certainly shown no knowledge of it. but that isn't uncommon, is it?



From what i've been learning about the UFO cover-up is that the Airforce was the CIA's bitch, carrying out their disinformation campaign. There are larger forces at work than the millitary...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Correct, the EMP would cause electrical problems and they would not have been able to navigate, so would that not have to have been replaced? That is why I was suggesting logs for the plane.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Correct, the EMP would cause electrical problems and they would not have been able to navigate, so would that not have to have been replaced? That is why I was suggesting logs for the plane.


It is quite possible that the jamming only caused the instruments to function erratically and didn't damage them. I would be more interested in how many televisions and radios had to be replaced in near by homes over the following three months.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Funny thing is that aircraft are not really affected by EMP.


i'd have to disagree with that assertation. an EMP fries virtually all electronic equipment in close proximity to its blast. a cessna would not be affected, nor would an older model private jet. however, at this point in time about 90 percent of commercial aviation is fly-by-wire. an EMP would make your typical airliner completely uncontrollable, to say nothing of the effects on the modern "glass" cockpits.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i'd have to disagree with that assertation. an EMP fries virtually all electronic equipment in close proximity to its blast. a cessna would not be affected, nor would an older model private jet. however, at this point in time about 90 percent of commercial aviation is fly-by-wire. an EMP would make your typical airliner completely uncontrollable, to say nothing of the effects on the modern "glass" cockpits.


If this was EMP from a nuclear blast I'd agree with you snafu, but this was directed jamming which is a whole different issue. The bizjet and the Cessna would have caught the fringes of the jamming signal not the whole jolt. I don't think that they would have had any permenant damage.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join