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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It all makes sense.
Flight 93 was shot down before it hit the world trades centre.
They flew a military aircraft and blew up the world trades centre so people would think it acually went into the world trades center.

but

1. Why didn't they just say that they gunned down the plane ... wouldn't it be a good thing that they stopped part of a terrorist attack?
2. Why did they won't the world trades center to blow up or crumble or whatever?

Can someone kind of tell me if I'm getting this right?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by miss_gymnast004]




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Flight 93 wasn't shot down "before it hit the world trade center". In fact, it wasn't shot down until an hour after the second plane hit the WTC. It was headed toward D.C. Possible targets could have been Camp David or the White House.

There are many more anamolies to Flight 93, but they should be reserved for another thread. This one is centering on how it went down.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



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

Originally posted by Frosty

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.



There was a bit more than a few checks found miles away.

post-gazette.com...


...investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.


By the way, that same article states


Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

time travel

911 fraud


Now you're talkin'!



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   


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?)


Hmm that was a while ago, but I always thought it was a missle from a navy ship (training exercise) that took the plane out, not a figher jet.

And under certain situations a jet could selectivly disable a commercial airliner. If you were to shoot down an airliner, and not want much evidence, would you A) shoot out the engines, boom crash, or B) riddle the fuseloge with cannon fire, which may leave tons of evidence behind (holes).

Also the C130, it sounds like a good explination that the airliner had been jammed somehow, but sorry if i missed this but...where did the C130 take off from? I've jumped out of these before, and i can tell you that the top speed isn't very fast. I mean the fact sheet says what? The top speed has to be below 400 easily. How fast was the plane moving? What's the maximum distance for the jamming? If the c130 took off north of the airline, i can't see it possibly catching the plane unless it were already close enough. If the c130 did report black smoke at 10:05?...then i guess it answeres the question that it was already somewhat close...but can anyone else fill in any of the other blanks to get the total picture?

Also, if the US says the time of impact was 10:03? butthere were 3 minutes missing from the tape, then wouldn't it make sense that the plane really crashed at 10:06, as seismic data shows...and the gov just reported 3 minutes earlier to confuse people about the misisng tape? But if it crashed at 10:06, the c130 couldn't have reported black smoke at 10:05 unlesssss A) the report was black smoke from the plane before it crashed, and the gov just changed it to black smoke from the field... or B) it really reported it at 10:08, but 3 minutes were knocked off just to make the data fit somehow...

Or C), clocks just wern't syncd, and the time issue is really nothing



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The 10:05 timetag on the report from the C130 is "approximated"...so you can't really determine much from that.

The C130 and the airliner would have basically been heading toward each other, so, it wouldn't have had to try to catch it.

P.S. Where the C130 took off from is never outright stated in the report. It was in the D.C. area...that's all we know.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
What a great post and something that has not recieved near as much investigation as it needs to have. Most definitely something flawed in the story released of flight 93. And Val has come along with the C130 and just added to the post and hopefully things will be more scrutinized. You both are commended for this important thread.

By the way esdad and Val, you guys got my last two votes for Way Above.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

The F-16 has a top speed of 1500 MPH.




that's mach 2+. it only flies that speed at high altitude. down near the ground it probably wont go over mach 1.5 due to the thick atmosphere



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx
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.


Good points.

The ideal situation in politics is to get somebody else to do your bidding and make it look like they did everything. That way you can blame it on them if anybody suspects what was going on and it gets too close to you.

I agree that if 911 truly unfolded as officially described then Bush could have said that the flight was shot down and after some remorse etc, the issue would be ended but that is not what happened. Obviously, something else happened and the deniability factor has to kick in.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Whats the possibilty that all of the people on board Flight 93, were actually all of the people from the other planes involved in n 9/11? Ive read and reread the theories on that happening and for some reason whether it happened that way or I just have this feeling that there is something to it, of course that would mean the whole thing was accomplished using remote controlled planes or missiles made to look like planes. Here is one link that goes over that scenario.


www.serendipity.li...



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I have enjoyed reading this thread and personally I don't believe that Flight 93 was shot down. The debris fields support an aircraft that was overstressed and broke-up before crashing. I do have a few comments on some of the points that have been made though.

1. If there was an F-16 going at full speed to try to intercept Flight 93 you could tell it's path by the claims for broken glass along its flight path. There would be too much noise from sonic booms to go unnoticed.

2. As far as I know there are no white F-16s. There are however white F/A-18's. Think NAS Willow Grove just outside Philly and NAS Pax River Maryland.

3. If you are trying to knockdown an airliner with a 20mm cannon you don't aim for the engines. An aircraft with wing mounted engines can still fly with one shot out. Fighters like the F-16 or F/A-18 only cary enough ammo for a few bursts. You shoot at where the wing joins the fuselage. If you hit the main spar the wing folds up and the plane goes straight down.

4. The EC-130H if it was used wasn't trying to jam the cell phones, it was jamming the CELL itself. The cell is the reciever that the phones transmit too. My brother-in-law's brother lives near Shanksville (he and his family couldn't go home for almost a week after the crash) he told me that the cell there had to be replaced before he could use his cell phone. I can buy the use of the EC-130H, at the time it was thought that there might be more than just four aircraft taken by the terrorists. Preventing any communication between the aircraft or people on the ground would be a smart move. EC-130H jammers are area of effect devices they don't jam selectively, they can also throw out enough power to fry recievers.

I do think that there was more to the 911 incident than is being let out. What that is, I don't know. I do remember hearing a radio report while everything was happening that there was an emergency landing at Allegheny County Airport. I never heard anything more about that.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

4. The EC-130H if it was used wasn't trying to jam the cell phones, it was jamming the CELL itself. The cell is the reciever that the phones transmit too. My brother-in-law's brother lives near Shanksville (he and his family couldn't go home for almost a week after the crash) he told me that the cell there had to be replaced before he could use his cell phone. I can buy the use of the EC-130H, at the time it was thought that there might be more than just four aircraft taken by the terrorists. Preventing any communication between the aircraft or people on the ground would be a smart move. EC-130H jammers are area of effect devices they don't jam selectively, they can also throw out enough power to fry recievers.


Thanks for this
. You understand that the EC-130H has more capabilities than is publically stated, right? It has classified capabilities, and also has had airframe kills in combat (according to certain sources). So we're talking about more than jamming.

Learning now that not only was the power grid and the land lines smacked down by whatever happened at approximately 10:03 to 10:06, but the cell receiver at the tower was taken out (permanently!)...just leads me to believe the EC-130H was involved, and its "classified mission" was to end up in Minnesota - that is after completing it's classified mission. And I believe that mission was accomplished near Shanksville, PA.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
Whats the possibilty that all of the people on board Flight 93, were actually all of the people from the other planes involved in n 9/11? Ive read and reread the theories on that happening and for some reason whether it happened that way or I just have this feeling that there is something to it, of course that would mean the whole thing was accomplished using remote controlled planes or missiles made to look like planes. Here is one link that goes over that scenario.


www.serendipity.li...


great link man!

a lot of good points many of which covered on ATS and some haven't been.

I am quoting this from the link above because it points to the occultic nature of the events for those that believe as I do that there is a connection:

"Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology." (John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)"

maybe it is majjic??



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Frosty

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.



There was a bit more than a few checks found miles away.

post-gazette.com...


...investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.


By the way, that same article states


Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.


YEs, sounds more and more like it was crashed on purpose, do to any number of reasons, and not shot down. Thank you for the follow up.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The witnesses to the white aircraft:

WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?


At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.

What was the white jet doing there and why won't they admit to its presence? Why did other witnesses see smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell from the sky, indicating a possible explosion aboard?



Susan Mcelwain:


"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.

"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.

"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."


Susan spoke to a friend within a few short hours. This friend was the wife of Air Force person:



"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don't believe what happened on the plane brought it down.



Lee Purbaugh:

Lee was the man working in the scrapyard and the only person to see the plane drill into the ground:



...was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.

"I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."

But did he see another plane? "Yes, there was another plane," Lee said. "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon."


Tom Spinelli:


...was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said.


"It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."



An anonymous flight controller said on the day that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of Flight 93 - Washington to Shanksville is seven to 10 minutes flying time.

A few minutes before the crash Bill Wright, piloting a single-engine Piper, could see Flight 93 three miles away, but was suddenly told to turn away and land immediately without explanation.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.

At 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight - was picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles from Shanksville.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
the rabbit hole goes deep on this one, young grasshopper...
My mind just played a little trick of assimilation of random bits, and put together a very scary picture
in full color...

I will wait to see if it matches the pictures being painted by Val and others...

Val... promise us that you wont be intimidated into stopping this research...
and ESdad... great work... without a doubt, one of your best...




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Good post. Unlike the vast majority of conspiracies, this was one is actually plausible and has an actual motive.

It would require the very minimum of participants which is crucial to maintain the secrecy.

I couldn't disagree with a decision to shoot down flight 93 along with the majority of Americans I would think, so I'm sure pilots and comms persons involved would be willing participants.

They would agree on secrecy for the better of the country, better we believe the passengers took the plane down than the US military and maybe save themselves from possible law suits and scrutiny. Who would want to be known as the guy who shot down flight 93?

The only thing preventing me from accepting this theory is hard evidence.

People aboard the plane were talking to love ones on the ground at the time. Is it possible to record those and if so, where are they?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
There's no evidence to back up the claim that Flight 93 was shot down; which means, of course, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists had to have the plane shot down, because if, as they claim, the WTC and Pentagon hits were controlled explosions, then there had to be something out of the ordinary about Flight 93.

Their claim is that the 9/11 attacks were government orchestrated, which means that there were no terrorist attacks - so these conspiracy theorists had to come up with some explanation as to why the flight dived into the field it did.

So one day, the claim's made, on this board or a board similar to this one, that Flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force. The theory suits them perfectly, because it explains away the hijacking of the fourth plane by 'terrorists' and now they've completed the circle.

So, what evidence is the theory based on? It's based mainly on the musings of a Professor Jim Fetzer, not surprisingly, the head of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and a man who's been quoted as calling for a 'second American Revolution.' Jim Fetzer claims that;

the SEC possesses knowledge of "put options" on American and United Airlines, which are suggestive of advanced knowledge that the attacks would take place; Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave very important testimony to The 9/11 Commission, which it chose not to include in its report; and the Secret Service conducted itself in a manner suggesting that it knew there was no serious threat to the President, even following the attacks in New York, while the Commander-in-Chief ignored the unfolding drama.

That's the claim he makes - alas it's only a claim; much like the claims of alien abductees.

Let's look, briefly at the mechanics of the claim that Flight 93 was shot down;

It's been claimed that witnesses noticed a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash. There was however, a business jet requested by ATC to investigate the crash area; the aircraft descended to an altitude around 1500 ft in order to survey the impact.

The claim's been made that pieces of the flight were found far from the crash site - which, some say, supports the theory of a shoot-down. NTSB investigators have found no evidence the plane was shot down. Debris exploding away and landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline accidents.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

So, what evidence is the theory based on? It's based mainly on the musings of a Professor Jim Fetzer, not surprisingly, the head of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and a man who's been quoted as calling for a 'second American Revolution.' Jim Fetzer claims that;



WTF are you talking about? None of my research has anything to do with Jim Fetzer or any organization. It's pulled from the official record and news articles within days of the event.

Why don't you try reading the thread before you comment on it.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Why don't you try reading the thread before you comment on it.

That would take all the mystery out of it.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join