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: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton


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?


It's not. I think that's what happened. What's your point?



[edit on 3-28-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Valhall...

I think you should ignore the baiting attempts, unless it serves a purpose of reinforcing info that wasn't covered well before...

we all see what Lanton is...

Tell us Lanton, if you really want to contribute...

Do you think that flight 93 was Shot down or was taken back under control by the passengers and the pilot, who couldn't fly the plane to save it?
there really are only two options there, as the transponder was turned back on shortly before it crashed, and as the shoot down order was given, and confirmed, to the f16s that were in firing range...

Then the little point of a "national security silent" comendation given to the f16s pilot for doing nothing but the unmentionable task that cant be mentioned due to National Security (but mentioned the attempts at doing something about the other 3 flights)

it really is a 2+2+2-4=2 type trail...
the EMP is the only sticky wicket that we are discussing here...
and it still looks possible... and could explain the transponder coming back on (or else the pilot couldn't save the plane at that time due to damage reasons)

or maybe you have no clue what i am talking about, and need to read the thread before answering...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton


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?


LMAO @ the idiot that is either too lazy too read the whole thread, or is intentionally trying to derail the discussion knowing that his accusations are completely false.

this is what valhall said in reference to 9/11:


originally posted by valhall


I do not believe the 9/11 attacks were some U.S. governmental conspiracy...that's my personal belief. The only complicity the U.S. government had in the overall day's events, IMO, was that of varying levels of incompetency that allowed it to happen. That's not a conspiracy, it's a trajedy. So when I started studying the 9/11 Commission Report it wasn't with some preconceived idea that the "conspiracy would be in there", or that I'd find some smoking gun. Instead, I read the report to know what the findings were (novel concept, I know). But within that report were some things surrounding Flight 93 that made me want to study that particular flight more in-depth. And I now personally believe there is/was a cover-up concerning the real events surrounding "the end" of flight 93. That's not a conspiracy in my mind (because to me conspiracy denotes plotting, planning and carrying out something covert), but instead it was a cover-up (i.e. you lie about the action you decided to take). I personally believe if Flight 93 was taken down it was the right thing to do. But, again I repeat, lying about it wasn't.


here's what i think: you, lantom, have been challenged over and over to come up with some kind of evidence to back up your claims against the evidence provided by valhall, esdad and others here. in your inability to do so, you instead decide to spread lies about those who have actually researched what they are discussing (something you seem to be incapable of), attacking their theories by trying to convince other viewers of this thread who, like yourself, are too lazy to read the whole thread, that valhall and others have said and believe things that they have quite clearly stated they do not. you want to lump them in with the charlie sheens of this website who believe that 9/11 was staged by the government, knowing full well that this is not the discussion at hand, and as shown above, that the individuals in question do not hold to that theory.

i think you will find, lantom, that presenting evidence you know to be false is grounds for banishment on this website...or were you too lazy to read the rules and regs of the site as well?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   


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.


I said 'basically' concluded, Lanton, and the poster I was responding to agreed with that assertion, but you left that word out to make it seem more like I am 'married' to the theory, didn't you? That is the hallmark and calling card of you debunker/disinfo specialists. You leave stuff out and twist it around so confusion takes hold and conclusions are discredited. Too bad it isn't working out so well for you here.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I am not changing my opinion here, I believe that Flight 93 was not shot down, that it crashed. I don't know if it crashed because the hijackers intentionally crashed it, if it crashed during a struggle for control of the aircraft or if some outside influence caused it to crash.

The question that I have is "So what if Flight 93 was shot down?". Three aircraft had already been hijacked and flown into buildings. It was confirmed by the cell phone conversations that Flight 93 was hijacked. It had changed course and was flying towards Washington DC. To me that was plenty of justification for shooting it down. No I am not being uncaring about the people who were on board, but in my opinion they were dead when the plane was hijacked. What I'm concerned about at this time would be in trying to prevent more deaths of people on the ground. Flight 93 had already passed Pittsburgh and was over what is pretty much a sparsely populated area. If you were trying to avoid additional casualties on the ground this is where you wanted to down the plane.

The problem with the theory that Flight 93 was shot down is bureaucracy. Who would have to authorize shooting down an American civilian airliner? How would that order flow through the military chain of command? What would the chances be that there was an armed aircraft that could get into position to shoot down Flight 93 in time? How long would it take from the time the order was issued until it reached the pilot of the aircraft? Would the pilot obey the order without confirmation? How long for confirmation of the order? Would the pilot refuse to obey the order? There are too many variables here. All you have to do is to read the transcript of the Air Traffic Controllers trying to notify NORAD of Flight 93 to see the problem here. First rule of bureaucracy is to cover your ass. No one wants to be left holding the bag for making an incorrect or more importantly an politically incorrect decision. We had a saying in the Navy that when asked to make a decision that you may not have permission to make, you responded “That decision is above my pay grade.”. When faced with that the prudent thing to do was to refer it to your immediate superior. If your superior felt that it was “above his pay grade” then he referred it to his superior. See where things are going here? It can take hours or even days to get even a simple decision made.

A few years before 9-11 a business jet going from Florida to Texas, had its passenger compartment depressurize in flight and the plane just kept flying because the people on board were incapacitated. An F-16 was launched to join up with the plane and try to see what was wrong. The pilot reported that he couldn’t see into the aircraft because the windows had frosted over on the inside. The F-16 was ordered to follow the plane and to observe. Finally after several hours the plane ran out of fuel and crashed in North Dakota. Fortunately the plane crashed in an open area and the only fatalities were the passengers and crew. In the ensuing media coverage an Air Force General was asked if shooting down the plane was ever considered? His response was that it wasn’t and in fact he had no idea who to contact to get authorization to shoot the plane down. The question was asked if it was even legal for the military to shoot down a US civilian aircraft unless it posed a threat to national security? While I believe that attacking the Pentagon could be considered a threat to National Security, could the same be said for other possible targets in the Washington DC area? The point that I’m trying to make here is that if a military aircraft shot down Flight 93 there must have been advance knowledge of a potential threat. I’m not talking about the time difference between events in New York and the crash of Flight 93, I’m talking about several hours or even days of advance knowledge. I personally, through experience, do not believe that given the military command structure and mentality on September 11th 2001 that an armed aircraft could have been launched and clearance to fire could have been given in the amount of time that was available. This leads to one of two conclusions. One, Flight 93 crashed due to a situation onboard the aircraft. Two, Flight 93 was shot down or made to crash by outside means. If conclusion Two is true then someone in the US Government had to have enough advance knowledge that something was going to happen, that maybe the entire event could have been prevented.

I started writing this post on Monday March 27th and didn’t finish it until today. When I was getting my morning news fix today I was reading Mike Straka’s Grrrr article on FoxNews.com’s website and found this statement in the “Your Grrrs” section for today. I am having trouble getting a link to work and the post is small so I’ll copy it here.


Ron says we have nothing to fear: Barb, in answer to your fears about cell phones used in flight: I teach cellular technology for a global infrastructure manufacturer. Cell towers have a relatively short footprint, normally less than 2.5 miles. The antennas are pointed slightly downward. These cell towers cannot communicate with a cell phone in an airplane traveling at 450 to 600 miles per hour while flying over.. Until we completely change the technology to something not yet discovered or airlines place small transceivers for each cellular carrier on each aircraft, we will not have anyone making cell phone calls in the air.

If Ron is correct and cell phone calls can’t be made from airliners. How were the calls from Flight 93 made on 9-11?


[edit on 28-3-2006 by JIMC5499]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
wow. Too much to follow here.

Here's one thing though. I was watching MSNBC on that day and they showed footage of the crater. However there was even less debris then at the Pentagon. and you could actually see grass growing over some parts of the hole as if it was a pre-made hole.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is the phone calls. at 30 000 cell phones don't work. Well just until recently that technology made it possible.

Third is nobody can argue with the fact that debris was found over 10 miles away. That doesn't happen when an airplane crashes into the ground at 90 degrees.

It's clear that the plane was shotdown. Even though Fox had reported on that day that the flight landed safely at an Ohio airport over a bomb threat which is a whole other can of worms which begs the question what crashed in Shanksville? There wasn't very much to be had from that crater. In the news footage you don't even see any luggage or airline seats. No big wing structures or engines either.





[edit on 28-3-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
We are not weak, we are complacent We are comfortable. On 9/11, we were caught basking in the glory that we feel is our country, and we were bought back the reality that there is death, war and terror throughout the world.

As a country we are tyring to prevent a future 9/11 style attack with DHS, and people fear martial law. This will not occur unless we allow ourselves again to become complacent, and allow ourselves to be susceptible to attack. This is coming too. NYSE is up, unemployment is down, people for the most part are happy since those LCD TV's are flying off the shelves. These are better indicators than chatter, look around you.


Now, back to the regulary scheduled program...


It is not a big deal but it is an intersting subject. This is not so much to debunk any such idea, rather it should be used as a place to attempt to filter out ideas and myth.

I have read about the legal arguements behind shooting down an aircraft, however i have to disagree about there not bieng enough time to scramble aircraft. There was more than ample time for the military to find and trail 93 til it met it's end, and that is what we are discussing.




[edit on 28-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
These 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on extrapolation. You can't just take a few facts, fill in the massive holes with your vivid imagination and call it a theory and not expect people to laugh at you.

These theories exist, partly, because, i guess, some people just find it too hard to believe that the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community could've been so inept as to prevent the attacks from happening - well, unfortunately, that was the case. But didn't i just do a huge post summarising how the CIA messed it up in the 1990s, or was that post not conspiratorial enough for your liking?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
come on guys (and gals)....the dispatching of the troll should increase the discussion, not stop it. this is a good one, so lets keep it moving!



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
come on guys, u should know fully well a governmet conspiracy doesn,t have to inlude the prez... he just a public figure. that doesn,t know s*** of 90% of what goes on.. why do you think the american military should reveal a history of confidential info to a guy that might only be in office for only 4 yrs.
what,s he gonna do after that when the cash runs dry?
write a book? sell his memoirs. publish his insights? maybe drop a secret or to for good measures.
bush is just an idiot while the military bigwigs tell him what to do n smile when he presents it to the public



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The REAL cover-up is that Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH at Shanksville.

See here and here.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
There is no angle, only ideas.
There is no truth, only opinion.
There are no lies, only acceptance.
There is no ignorance, for we deny it.

I can help but laugh that some of those pictures were taken directly from A&E
Do you have your own particular view of what happened?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Do you have your own particular view of what happened?


Yes, a 757 didn't crash there. That's what I believe happened.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean 747. This was done with an air to air missle. The missle destroyed the engines of the plane (which the missle is designed to do) , and the cockpit recorder lasted 2 full minutes past hearing the explosion on the recorder.

This means that a larger plane, such as flight 93, would have been able to continue a little longer after bieng struck but an pilot untrained in such emergency manuvers may not pull out of it. Real life is not Hollywood explosions.

Just thought this would add to the debris field and 'why it didn't burst into flames middair' discussion.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
..
The missle destroyed the engines of the plane (which the missle is designed to do)



Sorry to interrupt, but air to air missiles carry a blast fragmentation war., which is designed to ensure a large kill zone not the destruction of a particular target, being fitted with proximity fuzes and all. Fuel tanks are a very vulnerable to blast fragmentation, so unless your missle went straight into the engine and exploded right in the compressor belt (designed to keep disintegrating compressor blades from puncturing cabin and fuel tanks, but i really doubt it could handle anything resembling a war.) mid air fire should have occured.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Valhall, and others, you may be interested in this.

Devvy Kidd goes to Shanksville:
www.devvy.com...

She basically comes to the conclusion that UA 93 did crash there and about that she concludes "there is no question"; but she does conclude that it was likely shot down. She is an investigative reporter and has also investigated other crashes. Eyewitness interviews of hers in there, including the coroner. Valhall, she also discusses the power outage/lines down issue in there somewhere, but I havent read it in a while. May be of great interest to you.

The proposition that the C-130 was "sent up going to another air force base" when everything else was being taken out of the sky, the fact that it was just behind AA 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon, the fact that it was at UA 93 just as it crashed into the ground, the fact that there is a 3 minute 'lie' in the 'official' last minutes of the official UA 93 timeline, and that an ATC described an F-16 "circling" UA 93, does not jive with me. Definately something going on outside of the official story here. I hope the truth comes out somehow. I hate being lied to, and this is clearly a lie.

I am one who does believe in gov involvement in 9/11. - CIA/Mossad/White House

1) They HAD to shoot it down because it was just too late and no one would accept this one getting through air defenses all the way to DC for this amount of time.
-and-
2)The passengers were gaining control/attempting to gain control and the aircraft had to be brought down to destroy the evidence(who the hijackers really were and other evidence) that the passengers may have brought back to the ground safely.

I believe the last three minutes of the recording are missing, and the 'official' timeline drops the last three minues for either of two reasons:
1)the reasons that Valhall describes w the C-130
-or-
2)It showed that the passengers had gained control of the aircraft and was removed from the recording ( and then also the official timeline).

I dont believe this has primarily to do with 'creating heros'- that was only an afterthought IMO to rally the Homeland even farther.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Focus on that 93 didn't crash there. The shoot down claim and everything else is a moot point.


Look ma, no plane!






"The impact of the crash of Flight #93 left almost no trace above ground. Photo by S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review" - FEMA



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
They don't normally publish nasty shots. The greek flight only left the tail and steaming wreckage, or so it seemed from general media images... Of course the real photographs showing burnt corpses still strapped in their seats, body parts, etc are there, they just don't flaunt them around (and we do not allow them here on ATS due to there being children and people of a sensitive nature present).



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Focus on that 93 didn't crash there. The shoot down claim and everything else is a moot point.


Look ma, no plane!


UA 93 did crash there. Just because you dont understand what happened to the plane doesnt make it so. Dont expect to see a tail sticking out of the ground with this sort of impact. You cant look at a pic and go, "wheres the plane? see it didnt crash there." And in fact the man who took that pic you posted, Mark Stahl, himself believes that UA 93 crashed there. So your use of that pic in your argument is counterproductive.

The people who spent the time digging small human remains out of the ground(some very deep) and from the surrounding field and woods would disagree with you. And no they are not part of some conspiracy. Same for the man who saw it go down into the ground, or the others who saw it in the sky there.

Besides this thread is for those who have already come to the conclusion that UA 93 did crash there. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss it further. You have already made your beliefs known elsewhere in this thread. I don't think Esdad71 or Valhall or the others want you cluttering this thread with this argument, or with posts like mine refuting it.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by Selur Dassom]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Selur Dassom]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Selur Dassom]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Do you have anything else to add since you seem to have close knowledge of what happened? What are the theories that are talkd about in that area?

Flight 93 went down, it is just a matter of trying to figure out how it happened. I would think that relatives of the flight would also want to know if there was something from the official story not told to them. Thanks for your post.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join