Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, the distance that Flight 93 was from DC was about 80 miles, but if you change miles to minutes, it fits perfectly. Flight 93 was almost 10 minutes out based on airspeed. So, Did Mineta hear it wrong, or did he change that other simple fact?


Good point. Changing those little words would make your theory more believable. If he was going to change the time (the time of the supposed conversation that is) to make it look like the pentagon plane, he would also have to change "minutes" to "miles" to make it seem like the pentagon plane also. I would say that is a big possibility.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Griff]




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
ok, i'll bite on this one.

good analysis esdad. as i have told valhall for her story, there is a little more info that hasnt been addressed yet.

on 9/11 i was working in a small tower in the south, and after helping to get everyone on the ground (a whole 3 aircraft that couldnt get into atlanta) we brought a tv up to the tower cab and spent the rest of the day watching all the different reports. one of them was about cell phone calls from flight 93. i very clearly remember discussion about one cell phone conversation in which the person on the flight describes a huge explosion on the right side of the aircraft, and then the cell phone died. this was only reported on cnn the first day, and then as information came out about the "heroes" of flight 93, it was hushed and never reported again. i wish we had been recording, but if you start asking people about it, i am sure someone else will remember it. it very much sounds to me like the right engine was blown up somehow, which caused the nose dive. anybody ever actually hear the voice tapes in which it is claimed the terrorists talk about crashing the aircraft because the couldnt keep the passengers at bay (the official story)? i havent, and i'm an air traffic controller who has looked for them. it seems the freedom of information act doesnt apply to this one.

again, good write up esdad.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The debris field was split into 3 areas, impact, 3 miles out and 8 miles out. To me this would indicate 2 swift seperate attacks on the aircraft engines, and then it crashed.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
If 911 was an inside job, then why did they shoot down flight 93?


Let me start off by stating that I always believed that 93 was shot down.

That said, your question is a serious flaw in the conspiracy theory that Bush and his cronies were behind 9/11. Very serious flaw. If they were behind it they would have admitted to shooting down the plane to protect the nation's capital or they would have had it hit in another area.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
i just remember that movie from discovery, i think they had the actual cockpit recorder. Right before they cut the last 30 seconds off you hear.....pop pop pop pop pop pop pop....like guns going off. Then it goes off. They said it was people pounding the door. If they were ramming that so called cart into the door, what was someone standing on top of it? that takes up the whole aisle. And that sound was totally different then someone hitting the door with their fists. I think its funny how you hear the pops then the govt cuts the tape and says the last 30 seconds is irrelevant to anything.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I also wonder if the passengers were trying to take back over the plane, due to "having a feeling" that if they didn't, the jets outside the window would shoot them down...
or maybe someone knew what the policy was regarding hijacked airliners heading towards washington that day... surely some airforce pilots would have had a suspicion...

damned if you do, and damned if you dont, certainly would be a reason to try anything, including "lets roll" with the rest of the sentence possibily being "if we dont get control, the jet will have no choice but to shoot us down"

what think you all?

also, did anyone else remember Cheneys faux pau regarding his statements about flight 93?

As far as this being evidence of "no complicency" in 9-11,
answering to the US public for the shoot down order probably trumps the concern of conspiracy theorys...
at that time, it probably would have drawn even more critism of the governments response...


[edit on 23-3-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The passengers name was Edward Felt who made the 911 call, approximately 6 minutes prior to the crash. He reported an explosion

Now, were the gunshot noises actually the 20 mm rounds punching into the cockpit to bring the plane down? These noises were heard on the flight recorders, and the sudden rush of noise in the cockpit to implicate breaching of the cockpit windows. Then it goes down...

There are reports that the plane suddenly flipped over before it went down, so this would lead me to believe it lost one engine, kill shot to the cockpit and it rolled over and went straight down.

This could also be part of the reason there is no wide spread debris field at impact. If you look at planes when they crash and leave a large trail, the are coming in at a different trajectory than straight down, and break up over a larger area.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
Flight 93 case is at least strange. Why there where no parts, debris typical to that type of crash sites ? All we can se is just a hole in the ground.


this is completely typical of a high speed impact, in which everything is pretty much incinerated. the payne stewart accident is a perfect example. there was nothing recognizable as an aircraft part after that accident either because the aircraft nosedived straight down after running out of fuel.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Of all the nutty 9/11 theories (and there are some doozies), the closest one to making actual sense is that Flight 93 was taken down by AF jets. There are plenty of reasons why BushCo wouldn't want to admit doing that, and witnesses to the real events would be few.

They can make up all the stories they want about heroic passengers, but I've always thought the decision was taken out of their hands.

Flight 93 was late getting into the air, giving fighter jets out of Langley AFB time to get to it before it came in on Washington, DC. The Pentagon had already been hit, so the jets were in a very defensive mode. It all fits in with the timeline.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Yeah, there's plenty of pics of the crater...the plane went 30 feet into the ground, and hit with such an impact that the remains that were found were "sheets of skin", in other words the insides just kept going I guess.

I don't have a big problem with the crater and debris or lack of debris field (other than the debris miles away - I have issues with that).

Laz...

My main concern is this...if the gov took down Flight 93, I actually feel they made the right decision. So if they will lie when they do right, we haven't got a snowball's chance in hell with them when they're up to less than honorable things.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Laz...

My main concern is this...if the gov took down Flight 93, I actually feel they made the right decision. So if they will lie when they do right, we haven't got a snowball's chance in hell with them when they're up to less than honorable things.


val....

as much as i agree that government lying to us is never a good thing, you have to admit that this one serves a pretty good purpose. it gave us our first "win" on the war on terror. by convincing everyone that the passengers themselves defeated the terrorists on flight 93, they gave us our first heroes of the WOT. it was a very well done bit of propaganda. besides, admitting that they shot it down would be admitting to a violation of international law (shooting down of a civilian airliner....even if for all intents and purposes it was no longer "civilian").



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
No, a lie serves no good purpose. There is more than adequate evidence (and evidence from multiple people on the ground who were told what was going on in that plane) to "score a win" by the valiant efforts of the passengers. The truth is the government doesn't want to admit they may have taken down a plane that might have been in the throws of being taken back by the passengers.

This isn't about needing a victory or needing to produce heroism - that could have still been done while telling the truth.

I don't pay taxes to buy lies, snafu.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well said Valhall...
I agree

and as to the slip of the tongue admitting the shootdown, it was Rumsfeld, not Cheney...
sorry...
here is a link: (has other good info also)
Rumsfeld slip of tongue



[edit on 23-3-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
let me ask you a question val....

both pilots were dead, right? even if the pax managed to take back the plane, who was going to fly it?

what about all the propaganda of wwII, in which the government lied to us all in order to make the enemy believe? was that wrong too? is propaganda always wrong?

again, i'm not saying this was the right decision. but i cannot agree that propaganda is always wrong.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I have believed from the very day,9/11, that Flight 93 was shot down by the F-16 that was reported to be circling the Capitol then heading off at high speed to the northwest.

The whole federal government didn't have to be behind the attacks, just certain crucial elements of the military and intelligence arms. The fact that there was a military response to the attacks, and we had fighters in the air, is indicative of this.

I agree with denythestatusquo in a post made to another thread regarding the Anthrax Attacks, that the AA's were this same faction within the military and intelligence arms of the federal government warning the rest of them to go along with the 'official' story, or else.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
(I have been reading the posts for months, but decided to be vocal)

In regards to the statement of ...30 miles out...20 miles out...etc.

He still could have heard it correctly if they established a no-fly zone around specific targets and the miles were to that boundry and not all the way to the target.

This would make sense to establish a buffer to allow the F-16's to intercept.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Sorry, i do not buy anything of it.

Shooting down an airliner at any altitude will result in a huge debris field, which would be impossible to contain and therefore very hard to cover up. So, i think the 'crash site' is basically the rural equivalent of the pentagon's damaged facade, something that does not make much sense if any at all.

IF this hole in the ground is the real deal® the plane must have crashed in one piece.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
The truth is the government doesn't want to admit they may have taken down a plane that might have been in the throws of being taken back by the passengers.


I agree very much with this, as this would have been a media and legal nightmare.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I do not believe any F-16 (or any fighter for that matter) shot down Flight 93.

Here goes nothing...I'll just share what I got here and leave it to further esdad's excellent initiation of a long-needed discussion.

There's more holes in the official record for Flight 93 than in a kitchen collander.

I'll be back in a bit.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Shooting down an airliner at any altitude will result in a huge debris field, which would be impossible to contain and therefore very hard to cover up. So, i think the 'crash site' is basically the rural equivalent of the pentagon's damaged facade, something that does not make much sense if any at all.


Can you give us some evidence of airliners shot out of the sky that would prove that shooting down an airliner will cause a larger debris field? There is also debris spread over a 8 mile area, is this not enough to fit your own thoery, just curious?

The only 2 that come to mind are the KAL(?) flight that Russia shot down and a Iranian airliner shot down by a US warship and there is no debris filed information on this crashes.

Not sure how the crash site is connected to the Pentagon though and the airliner that hit it.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join