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

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
There is nothing that has been presented, in my mind, that suggest at all Flgiht 93 was shot down.

First of all, from what altitude? THis is could be given based on the field of the debris, but instead the debris field matches to what appears to be somekind of intentional crash. The idea that a few checks (paper) were find miles away suggesting the plane was shot down is very adolescent.

Honestly, there is not one glaring fact that suggest the plane was shot down. Many of these quotes are taken out of context for the purpose of propoganda. It commonly appears in most 9/11 conspiracies, the towers to the pentagon.




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oddzon
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.


Also a good point. Didn't think of that angle.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
There is nothing that has been presented, in my mind, that suggests at all Flgiht 93 was shot down.

True. I personally don't know of any real good, hard evidence to suggest that Flight 93 was shot down. I don't see any fighter pilots trying to shoot out the engines or anything first, so that the plane might make a crash landing somewhere. From what I understand, the armament on fighter jets aren't meant to wound, but to kill. That would naturally result in a big explosion (Flight 800, anyone?) and a huge debris field, rather than a compact crater with limited debris.

Not to mention there would be all kinds of military explosive residue all over everything that was left intact.

Shooting down the plane and not discussing it would make perfect sense, but I don't know of anything to prove that it actually happened.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
o.k. a few things still don't make any sense to me here, just looking @ this from my p.o.v. i haven't bought any of the gov't off. lies of what happened that day. but i'm having a hard time buying most of the theories out there. I know the towers were struck roughly between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (keep in mind I said roughly, I don't really follow this particular topic)I also know the pentagon was struck roughly between 9:30 and 9:40. flight 93 went down @10:06:05. here is where i get lost: the time span between the second plane colliding w/wtc and the 3rd plane striking the pentagon. and also the time span between the pentagon being struck to flight 93 crashing. is my understanding of exactly when 9/11 was judged to be a terror attack incorrect? being that it was determined to be an attack shortly after the first 2 planes crashed into wtc? or was it determined only after the pentagon was struck? if it was determined between the second plane crash and the 3rd, then why wouldn' the plane on its way to the pentagon, being closer to the terrorist's target be shot down? why would fighter jets scramble to flight 93 rather than the plane that was closer to washington? this misunderstanding is why i tend to lean towards the "stand down theory" as well as the factual amount of time lapsed between the first plane crash and the launch of fighter jets that day. i know my understanding may be juvenile, so please be nice if you decide to fill me in. thanx appreciate it.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The following events and associated time-tags are taken straight from the official 911 Commission Report which can be accessed here.

Both planes have hit the WTC towers...

9:25 - FAA Herndon Command Center orders a nationwide ground stop

Flight 77 is headed toward DC

9:33 Reagan airport is notified of incoming, high-speed, unidentified aircraft.

9:34 FAA Herndon informs FAA HQ Flight 93 has been hijacked.

9:34 an Air National Guard C130H takes off in the Washington DC area (from what specific location is unknown). This ANG plane is allowed to take-off 8 minutes after the FAA ground stop was called. And, yes, I understand that we are talking about FAA and military differences - I'm sure there's some extremely critical reason a cargo plane needed to take off allegedly to do nothing more than fly to Minnesota - in the middle of all hell breaking loose.

Reagan airport contacts the C130H and requests that he try to locate the unidentified aircraft, identify it, and follow if possible. The C130H immediately spots the plane and identifies it as a 757 and attempts to follow it.

9:36 - FAA Cleveland advises FAA Herndon it is tracking 93 and asks if a fighter intercept has been requested.

9:37 - Flight 77 impacts Pentagon

9:38 - C130H notifies Reagan "that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir"

The C130H apparently is allowed to continue on its all critical mission to Minnesota.

9:42 - FAA Herndon instructs all airborne aircraft to land at nearest airport

The C130H continues on.

9:49 - Commander of NORAD directs all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed

The C130H continues on.

10:03



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Oops...I missed something. REALLY IMPORTANT.

When the family members were allowed to listen to the voice recorder at 10:03 the voice recorder "just went silent". Since it is established that the impact time was 10:06:05 this means that 3 minutes of this tape are missing. But the interesting point here is that Jere Longman, in his book "Among the Heroes" states the tape was a 34 minute long [continuous loop analog] tape...with only 31 minutes recorded on it.

That can't be so. Because an analog continuous voice recorder will always have the full recordiing time on it...it just starts recording over itself after it has reached the end of the loop. It doesn't "erase and start over" it just records over.

There are 3 minutes missing from the voice recorder...that just went silent.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

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.


Good point and consistent with what I have been saying. But don't go thinking that the Arabs did it either.

Something else happened to Flight 93 and that is the freaky part.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Val, for clarification...

Are you talking about a possible EMP weapon discharge (on the C130) to bring down the plane and the electric lines at the same time?

If not, would that do it?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Yes, sir, that's what I'm talking about. I think there's way too much evidence of that very thing happening to not consider it.

Else we're going to have to explain the tremendously bizarre events of the phones, voice recorder, power grid and land lines all going dead.

Further to that, here's something I just can't understand. None of these cell phone calls disconnected...what the heck causes a cell phone to go dead but not tell the person on the other end the call has been disconnected???

That part has me stumped.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Flight 93 shot down by the U.S.???
It seems to me based on the buildings in the background, that if one of our jets fired a rocket at that airliner, someone would have had to have seen the rocket flying through the air....someone....but nobody did...I seriously doubt it was shot down...besides a rocket would have blown it to smithereens and that airliner definitely plowed that field...it wasn't exploded into a million pieces over miles of land.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
Flight 93 shot down by the U.S.???
It seems to me based on the buildings in the background,


What buildings in what background???



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
esdad71 and Valhall both just got a WATS from me and I just got a newly subscibed thread...keep it up folks this is some of the most interesting stuff I have read in quite a while!



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I agree with the C-130 'blacking out' the communication, but not the EMP type weapon discharge to disrupt and take down the plane although a good theory. The EC-130H is designed to be used to disrupt and end communications in warfare situations.

www.af.mil...

The EC-130H works in conjunction with the F-16 and the Prowler, which has also been proven to be in the air on 9/11.

So, the 130 shuts it down electronically, the F-16 finishes it and the evidence is never recorded. Is this the direction you are thinking?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Notice the following:

Two planes hit the towers and people die from each crash, sacrifice.

Drone hits the pentagon and nobody dies.

Flight 93 crashes and people die, three planes three sacrifices within so much time.

Coincidence?

Then there is the geometrics that join each of the sacrifices and including the pentagon.

I'll find some links, I saw the outlines before but few noted the lack of death at the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
thank you for clearing that up for me valhall

but 1 thing i still don't understand is the immense amount of time it took to figure out that flight 77 was hijacked and why weren't fighter jets deployed immediately upon realizing that the 2 planes that crashed into wtc were hijacked. isn't it the u.s. gov'ts policy to deploy jet fighters as soon as there is a report of a hijacking?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Yes, esdad...that's the way I'm thinking. And who knows if it was multiple planes or just the EC-130H. I have been told, but cannot confirm, that the Compass Call has had airframe kills in combat. I'll leave it at that.

Would like to follow up with some more information on the "missing 3 minutes". This is from a Philadelphia Daily News article that I had to purchase in order to get access, so I'll quote some relevant portions of it and then give reference, but can't give you a link.

This is only pertinent portions of the article...


Three-minute discrepancy in tape
Cockpit voice recording ends before Flight 93's official time of impact

Author: WILLIAM BUNCH bunchw
@phillynews.com

September 16, 2002

A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent - according to government-prepared transcripts - and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.

But the FBI has clamped a tight lid of secrecy on the flight data recorder - which could best show how Flight 93 actually crashed - and on the cockpit voice recorder.

But the relatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape April 18 at a Princeton hotel said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.

"There is no sound of the impact," said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother, Lou Nacke Jr., is one of the passengers believed to have fought with the hijackers. Nacke confirmed that the government said the tape ended at 10:03 a.m.

Vaughn Hoglan, the uncle of passenger Mark Bingham, said by phone from California that near the end there are shouts of "pull up, pull up," but the end of the tape "is inferred - there's no impact."

Seismologists - experts in the earth's vibrations - have almost exactly pinpointed the time of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:06:05.

"The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10:06:05," plus or minus two seconds, said Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events. "I don't know where the 10:03 time comes from."

Likewise, a written study commissioned by the Department of Defense - carried out by seismologists from Columbia University and the Maryland Geological Survey - also determined impact was at 10:06:05.



Copyright (c) 2002 Philadelphia Daily News
Record Number: 7003844686




[edit on 4-9-2006 by Springer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by zerotolerance
Flight 93 shot down by the U.S.???
It seems to me based on the buildings in the background,


What buildings in what background???


Go to the first page in this thread and look at the crash site photo.
There are buildings off in the background distance.
Far enough off that anyone living there who might have been looking at the sky would have seen a rocket fly into the airliner.....anything's possible.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Maybe Flight 93 was diverted somehow.. follow the trail..

Montauk, time travel, secret bases, soul extraction, re-insertion, fake crash.

Flying triangles?

one example of what is out there, I don't to restate it all.

911 fraud



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance

Go to the first page in this thread and look at the crash site photo.
There are buildings off in the background distance.


Thanks zero! Some how I missed those the first time through!



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Good post.

Yes it does seem obvious that if bush and co were behind the attacks, they would admit to shooting the planes down. But what if you were in control? What are the major goals of 9/11 if you were to plan it as an inside job. Well, if your goals are to unify america, create patriotism etc, and and gain support for a war vs the terrorists, would you LOVE to have a story floating around about the heroism of a group of americans who gave their own lives to protect the lives of others?

This would help solidify the goals of 9/11 with the general public, but the conspirators would know that it would also confuse the hell out of anyone shouting conspiracy theories about 9/11. Just as it's doing now. Give a little hint that it was shot down, don't announce it, and let everyone think "well jeeze, if bush was behind 9/11, why not announce the shoot down?"

sorry, just my brain going over every possible scenario.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join