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

Interesting and enjoyable reading if nothing else. There's a lot of smoke and a little fire with regards to the mechanism of downing of F93. EMP is a likely possibility, as to what aircraft deployed that weapon - ??? I believe something, in addition to brave passengers, helped to end the journey of F93, but without more data who can really know. I can only add that our military possesses and uses weaponry that is at times at the fringe of what is believable.

LASER and microwave weapons, targeted sound weapons, rail guns and other more covert weaponry that leave no "trace" of conventional evidence. To assume the EMP technology has improved is a given - the use of magnet theory as a weapon began before Tesla, and has been evolving since.

The thing I was interested in was the detail about the woman in the minivan who called 911 after seeing F93 go down, if EMP was used - how could she contact 911? Of course the rebuttle would be her distance from the weapon deployment or the focal use of such a weapon. Who was this lady, and did her call go thru?

Also, were any personal electronic devices recovered at the crash site, things that could be studied to check for "fried circuitry?" Likely -no.

I'd like to thank Vall for non-biased info, and congratulate her on keeping her cool when she could have thrashed someone who brought a duck to a cock fight.

Keep up the brainstorming and logic, we need more "if--->then" thinkers and fewer "Atlantians create dissolvable marshmellows for cocoa."

Originally posted by snafu7700
actually, we are talking about the possibility of an EMP weapon. you know as well as i do that normal buzzing would not do this kind of damage, even at a very high output. just because i havent heard of an EMP weapon being developed (outside of "the matrix" of course) doesnt mean that it hasnt happened. the damage valhall describes is exactly the damage you would see from an EMP, and it would not in any way effect a cessna. the reason is that a cessna's controls are all pushrods and wires....nothing electronic. the only effect it might have had on a cessna would have been its radios, depending upon its location (i have a feeling that any EMP developed would most likely be a directional weapon....its pretty much useless otherwise). an airliner's controls and instrumentation are completely electronic and would be fried by an EM pulse....especially its electronically controlled engines and flight control surfaces.

now, if we are talking normal electronic buzzing like you would have from a prowler, then you are absolutely correct. But i have long since concluded that the damage described would almost have to be from an EM pulse.


[edit on 25-3-2006 by snafu7700]

Actually the Prowler can throw out enough energy down a directed bearing to microwave a turkey at a range of two miles. The EA-6B has been known to set off the detonators on missiles and bombs at a considerable distance.
It has been compaired to the Aegis radar for the FLK syndrome. If you don't know what FLK is it means that there is enough radiation to make the pilot of the jammed aircraft produce "Funny Looking Kids".

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Actually the Prowler can throw out enough energy down a directed bearing to microwave a turkey at a range of two miles. The EA-6B has been known to set off the detonators on missiles and bombs at a considerable distance.
It has been compaired to the Aegis radar for the FLK syndrome. If you don't know what FLK is it means that there is enough radiation to make the pilot of the jammed aircraft produce "Funny Looking Kids".

wow. i knew about the HF hazards but i had no idea they could direct a beam so precisely at two miles.....but if they can do that, then why not an EM pulse directed down one particular bearing so as to have no effect on the originating aircraft or anything behind it?

Originally posted by snafu7700

wow. i knew about the HF hazards but i had no idea they could direct a beam so precisely at two miles.....but if they can do that, then why not an EM pulse directed down one particular bearing so as to have no effect on the originating aircraft or anything behind it?

Remember one thing, all forms of Electromagnetic energy are in the forms of waves. They spread out from the point at which they originate. That is the cause of the inadvertant interference.

the reason why this theory gets the least amount of attention is because its the easiest to believe and understand. Most people on this site want to think of theories that out of this world but the truth is, none of that demolition in the towers B.S. is true, a missile didnt hit the pentagon, flight 93 was most likely shot down. This is probably one of the only conspiracys that happened on 9/11 and the lack of attention to it is proof enough. Do you really think that if bush planned all of 9/11 and put explosives in the towers to bring them down that anyone would have figured it out? People need to stop being paranoid and except things for what they are, except for Flight 93.

Originally posted by Truth_is_undeniable
the reason why this theory gets the least amount of attention is because its the easiest to believe and understand. Most people on this site want to think of theories that out of this world but the truth is, none of that demolition in the towers B.S. is true, a missile didnt hit the pentagon, flight 93 was most likely shot down. This is probably one of the only conspiracys that happened on 9/11 and the lack of attention to it is proof enough. Do you really think that if bush planned all of 9/11 and put explosives in the towers to bring them down that anyone would have figured it out? People need to stop being paranoid and except things for what they are, except for Flight 93.

Lying about one of the events will also draw suspicion to the rest. There is plenty to be suspicious about, at all of the impact sites....

pentagon, the confiscating of all area videos MINUTES after the impact. The conflicting eyewitness reports...the lack of any major remnants of a 757...the incredible skill of the pilot to perform maneuvers that border on the miraculous....3 full sections of the building were penetrated by a hollow aluminum tube...there are more, but you get the idea.

WTC 1, 2 and 7....building that are damaged ASYMMETRICALLY do not fall SYMMETRICALLY, I could post hundreds of pictures of fire damamged building that only collapsed where the damage was, the rest stood. The eyewitness reports from firemen saying bombs were going off, the video and seismic evidence of huge explosions PRIOR to the final collapses...Larry Silverstein HIMSELF said bld 7 was "PULLED" a term we all have come to know by now...did they rig the building for demo in just a few hours??? Or was this 'rigging' already done prior??

Shanksville, PA site....shows a impact crater with NOTHING IN IT...no airplane, no luggage, no bodies, NO FIRE....the Mayor of Shansville was there and himself was quoted as saying its just a crater, with nothing in it. what made that crater? Do you really believe a 757 made it and then vanished??

THESE are the reasons there are so many skeptics and people who want to know the truth, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO. And any American worth their salt should stand up and DEMAND to know the truth, and be full willing to take action against those responsible....the real 'evil-doers' have much to be worried about. This IS NOT going away until it reaches a final conclusion.

Great documentary on the web- LOOSE CHANGE 2nd Edition. It has a lot of good information. The burden of proof is always there, but so is the burden of belief/denial. Google search video for that title - 80minutes of good supposition.

F93 is a weird one - lots of tiny debree, no bodies or body parts, no luggage and the 3 minutes of missing flight recorder tape. Big big plane - itty-bitty scorch mark - hmmm?

The whole 9/11 thing may have been a big bank job - stocks insider traded before 9/11, gold deposits in WTC in the hundreds of billions, WTC insurance payout in excess of 3 billion dollars - lots of money involved and definitely inside power brokers from the highest echilons of our government. All this is for another time though -

More good points brought up, that loose change 2nd edition video is posted on here in a few places and many ahve seen it and commented on it.

Welcome from one newcomer to another.

No need to quote the entire post directly above you. Thanks. - Umbrax

[edit on 28/3/2006 by Umbrax]

In my opinion the only conspiracy theory here is the one created by the government. All evidence points to a shoot down. If you are going to shoot down a plane you are going to want something heat-seeking. Those won't leave a large debris field with a commercial jet. The missle is going to lock in on the engine and the engine will come off easy. It could cause the wing to burst in to flames or perhaps the engine just blows off. For a commercial pilot it would be survivable. They have the training to fly a jet with a catastropic engine failure. The 911 hijackers had no such training. They would have lost control of the jet when the one wing went dead. Remember the Concorde crash? It had a crippled wing because of the fire. The jet eventually rolled over and took a dive to the ground basically upside down just like in the PA crash. What about the the Chicago crash back in the 1970's where the DC10 lost an engine at takeoff? The wing stalled and the jet basically flipped and crashed into the ground. The PA crash is consistent in so many ways with a catastrophic engine failure. And having the engine shot off would be consistent with the multiple debris fields and the upside down dive into the ground.

I've thought from the minute I heard about the "crash" that the plane was shot down by our military. I have no problem with it either. The passengers were going to die one way or the other, but by allowing the plane to fly on, the possibility of mass fatalities on the ground would have been huge. This incident, like that of Flight 800, seems to me to be a perfect senario for a government cover-up. If Flt. 800 had been openly revealed to have been shot down (by whoever), it could have devastated the airline industry. Who would want to fly if they knew we are so vulnerable? And with Flt 93, I agree with previous poster, it just looks better to have the victims of that flight seem to be heroes vs. expendable citizens.........

Such a great thread with alot of eye opening comments and discussion.
As much as it can be shouted by some "where is the evidence" or "this jet/plane can only do this or have this".....again it needs to be said our gov't DOES NOT tell us everything......
some might say why lie about this certain military aircraft and its capabilities....I think it's been pretty much common knowledge to anyone with a fair mind for decades that our gov't doesn't share EVERYTHING with us....and I'm sure there are plenty of military craft that we don't know the full capabilities of.

Based on some of the stories/lies our gov't has fed us concerning many topics over the years....I'd say based on the facts laid out by ValHall here and others, and with some good logical "put 2 n 2 together" thinking.....I'd put alot of faith in this new theory, rather then something our gov't throws at us as "the official" truth.

I agree that "marrying" yourself to a conspiracy theory as it's been stated in this thread......isn't something healthy.
Props to everyone here with more knowledge on the this subject then myself, contributing their opinions/facts/and speculation.
I don't find anything about this theory discussion as disgracing those on board who died, or even spitting on their memory.

I happened into this thread by accident but am very glad I took the time to read through each page and take in all the information presented.

I encourage anyone visiting or others already here to spend some time and read through it all again just to get a good accounting of the discussion and theories being presented before posting something that jumps to conclusions or insults someones intelligence.

Very good discussion!

Excellant post. You know what...the government doesn't want you to question them...they never do.

Know why? Cuz you frighten them, when you do.

Personally, I've never believed half the crap they've tried spoon feeding the public.

If you're really ignorant to believe anything, a bunch of fat jerks on Capitol Hill tell you, that lied to get into their elected positions...then you go right ahead...you've got the right to believe the Horse Manure if you want.

As for Me and My house, I wouldn't stick My hand in a basket full of rattlesnakes if they told Me I'd be okay...so why would you...oh yeah...you believe in those idiots on Capitol Hill.

Better get the anti-serum for rattlesnake bites...you're gonna need it.

Never believe anything a politician tells you, you'll live better and longer.

Politicians are a lot like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reason.

Sorry...Sept 11th didn't happen the way they told you. They let it happen, and or had the help of the CIA in fabricating most of it.

I remember watching the BBC’s broadcast on the events of that day, and distinctly remember seeing F-16 (Or similar fighters) following a commercial airliner, other people must have seen this same footage to?

Speaking of EA-6B's, what carrier was it that pulled into NYC harbor shortly after 9/11? Was it "Connie" (CV-64)?

Sorry, I answered my own question. It was "Washington" CV-73.
I had been looking but couldn't find out. Found a Navy Times site on back-issues!

[edit on 3/27/2006 by JungleMike]

Originally posted by fm258


Lying about one of the events will also draw suspicion to the rest. There is plenty to be suspicious about, at all of the impact sites....

pentagon, the confiscating of all area videos MINUTES after the impact. The conflicting eyewitness reports...the lack of any major remnants of a 757...the incredible skill of the pilot to perform maneuvers that border on the miraculous....3 full sections of the building were penetrated by a hollow aluminum tube...there are more, but you get the idea.

my brother was in arlington national cemetary and saw the plane come in and hit the pentagon. I think ill believe my brothers eye-witness account rather then some information i get from a poorly made internet documentary.

Yo, you are a ghost on this site. 25 total posts in 15 months, with an inactivity period of over a year between 1/05 and 2/06. Now you come out and say your brother was in ANC and saw the jet that hit the Pentagon.

You ignore all but one of the threads about the jet that hit the Pentagon, and when you get challenged on the same post there, you post the same little tidbit here, on a thread that has basically concluded Flt. 93 was shot down, something you agreed with but called an exception in your previous post to this thread.

Why here, and why now, with this post of secondhand eyewitness verification?

Where in ANC was your brother? Is he military? Are you? Can you scan and post some type of document to prove what you allege?

I checked up on your other posts, my own little PI job.

Here's a quote from your Classified Counter-Terrorism teams thread;

Thank you sir. Im always amazed at some of the stuff that ATS members know.

Does that worry you?

Your first thread when you returned to the board on 2/24/06 was a repeat of "what do you think happens when we die", then you went straight to debunking black helicopters with this jewel;

black helicopters dont necessarily mean that theres something strange going on. Theres many helicopters used by militarys across the planet that are painted all black without any markings. There not uncommon at all

Grammatical errors aside, you don't have the participation in or credibility on this site to make the claim you have and be believed.

Personally, I think you are trying to do damage control, whether on your own, or at someone else's direction, I don't know. Imo, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. No offense.

You are right about one thing; your screen name.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]

Lol @ the 'thread that has concluded Flight 93 was shot down'. So just because a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists think that that's the case, then it must be the case?!

A bunch of assumptions have been made on a few solid facts; that there was a C-130 in the general area of the crash-site, that ONE (yes, only one) individual claimed to have lost power to his house around the time the flight crashed into that field, and that there's an EW variant of the C-130.

The best lies are formed around nuggets of thruth; as is the case with this rubbish conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Skibum
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?

Modern jet engines aren't designed to be operated at full throttle for long periods of time. If the people flying the plane had throttled the engines up in an attempt to gain speed for some reason and left the engines at full power then it's entirely possible that it could have suffered a catastrophic failure, and some sort of explosion.

Originally posted by Lanton

A bunch of assumptions have been made on a few solid facts; that there was a C-130 in the general area of the crash-site, that ONE (yes, only one) individual claimed to have lost power to his house around the time the flight crashed into that field,

You still haven't read the thread, have you?

A good five pages back I posted that the entire town had power failure, but that it could have been caused by a downed power line. I also posted that I have emailed a media source in Philadelphia asking if they ascertained what the cause of the power outage was, what the cause of the land line phone system failing was, and why the cell tower receiver went out. I have not received a response yet, but I will continue to ask these questions.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Lanton

A bunch of assumptions have been made on a few solid facts; that there was a C-130 in the general area of the crash-site, that ONE (yes, only one) individual claimed to have lost power to his house around the time the flight crashed into that field,

You still haven't read the thread, have you?

A good five pages back I posted that the entire town had power failure, but that it could have been caused by a downed power line. I also posted that I have emailed a media source in Philadelphia asking if they ascertained what the cause of the power outage was, what the cause of the land line phone system failing was, and why the cell tower receiver went out. I have not received a response yet, but I will continue to ask these questions.

Answer me this; why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of highly determined and well-trained terrorists snuck into the US, trained to fly commercial jets at a couple of flight-training schools dotted around the country, boarded those planes on the morning of 9/11, killed or at least disabled the pilots and gained control of the cockpits and therefore the planes?

In the 1990s, the CIA basically started shutting down it's operations in environments deemed to be hostile or at the very least, too unfriendly. That meant getting the CIA's people out of the Middle East, Central Asia and South-East Asia or at least putting leashes on them so they didn't stray too far off of the range. The Clinton administration was trying to broker deals between US oil and gas companies and countries in the Middle East and Central Asia and it didn't want no spooks finding out bad things about the people they were dealing with and screwing up the deals. One great example of this apathy on the part of Washington and Langley to gathering intel on Ameriaca's enemies and allies and carrying out ops based on that intel was when the White House instructed the CIA NOT to bug an Iranian terrorist group; for the simple reason that around that time, a US firm was about to sign a deal, backed by the Iranians, to open an oil pipeline that was to snake it's way through Central Asia. The White House finally relented when a CIA officer threatened to go to Congress and expose the whole thing.

By the mid 1990s, for example, the CIA had pulled it's last operatives out of the Kurdish-controlled part of Northern Iraq. Around this time, the Kurds and the Iraqi opposition were putting the final touches to a plan to overthrow Saddam; they asked for support from Washington and Washington replied that it had no interest in getting involved, even though it kept saying that ultimately they wanted the man removed. Saddam found out about the plot, however the Kurds decided to go it alone and within days, a small Kurdish force had Iraqi units in the North on the run. The CIA team on the ground reported the good news back to Langley, however they were told that because the progress of the battle couldn't be confirmed through ELINT (electronic intelligence) the CIA wouldn't just take their word for it (if ELINT couldn't confirm it, then it wasn't happening). The Kurds finally ran out of steam and supplies and that was the end of that short-lived insurrection against Saddam.

The CIA, by 9/11, had effectively got out of the business of spying on America's enemies. No satellites or telephone intercepts are gonna give you the goods on a plan of the calibre of the one carried out on 9/11. The CIA would've needed to have had it's own men operating on the ground throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and South-East Asia, running agents, following up on leads, carrying out bugging ops, abducting terrorists or ringleaders, operating against friendly countries and friendly intelligence services. But at the end of the day, the way Washington and the bosses at the CIA saw it, agents were messy; they often lied to their handlers, or simply didn't pass on the needed intel. Busted ops were also a diplomatic nightmare, for obvious reasons and they threatened the careers of officers back at Langley. Basically, the thinking was; if you don't risk anything, you don't lose anything. The CIA felt that seeing as it was too hard to infiltrate terrorist groups like Al-Queda, why even bother?

If the CIA couldn't prevent, solve, or want to solve, the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, then i really don't see how the entire US intelligence community could've prevented the 9/11 plotters from doing what they did - and I certainly don't see how that same agency could've orchestrated the 9/11 attacks themselves.

America was weak, and it's enemies realised that. They knew the capabilities and weaknesses of the US intelligence community better than the community itself did (the same people who had helped train the Iraqi's, Iranians and Afghans). They bided their time, planned well, took precautions and in the end they succeeded in killing thousands of Americans.