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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Steely Eyes- Unless you have shot down a commerical airliner, please send me a link with some pictures refering to what the debris field would look like? also, I use tin foil to cook....
Common sense tells us that if debris is falling over a 8 mile stretch, something caused it, right?

lanton- read the thread, and the posted link. how much easier can we make it.

truthseeka- we know this is blow to your CI-qeada theories, but thanks for the post anyways




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
blackthorne, yes why was this one shot down? i believe that you raise a good point, who exactly was on the flight? Were there more people on the plane than what the manifest showed for flight 93? Ikeep asking myself the question as we seem to know there were some distance from DC when the plane went down.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
www.post-gazette.com...

This is a newspaper report 5 days after 9/11. This places the C-130 and a white business jet in the vicintiy. Did anyone one that jet see anything?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
www.post-gazette.com...

This is a newspaper report 5 days after 9/11. This explains the white aircraft and puts the C-130 there.

So what? Valhall's taken this statement by the FBI; "A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed" and deduced that it was in fact an EC-130H and that that plane brought the flight down.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]


I can't speak for all of them, but I know that most US aircraft and weapons systems have capabilities that are ment for use only in an emergency or in an all out war. I don't know about the EC-130H having knocked down aircraft with it's jamming system, but I do know from experience that EA-6B Prowlers have set off enemy SAM's while they were still on their launchers and have set off radio controlled car bombs far away from their intended targets. From past experience I tend to give Valhall's information a high credability factor. I don't doubt the presence of the EC-130, the problem I have is with the position of the EC-130. I am very familiar with the capabilities of the C-130 aircraft and am trying to figure out its possible position in relation to Flight 93. Either it wasn't close enough to do anything or it has the capability to direct its jamming long distances on a tight beam.

One thing that needs to be mentioned it that there are other sources of information besides that on the internet. It may not always be possible to provide a link to the information. That doesn't mean that it is not valid anymore than being able to provide a link makes the information valid.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]


I can't speak for all of them, but I know that most US aircraft and weapons systems have capabilities that are ment for use only in an emergency or in an all out war. I don't know about the EC-130H having knocked down aircraft with it's jamming system, but I do know from experience that EA-6B Prowlers have set off enemy SAM's while they were still on their launchers and have set off radio controlled car bombs far away from their intended targets. From past experience I tend to give Valhall's information a high credability factor. I don't doubt the presence of the EC-130, the problem I have is with the position of the EC-130. I am very familiar with the capabilities of the C-130 aircraft and am trying to figure out its possible position in relation to Flight 93. Either it wasn't close enough to do anything or it has the capability to direct its jamming long distances on a tight beam.

One thing that needs to be mentioned it that there are other sources of information besides that on the internet. It may not always be possible to provide a link to the information. That doesn't mean that it is not valid anymore than being able to provide a link makes the information valid.

We know there was a C-130 (or a variant of that aircraft) close to the scene of the crash site, the FBIs admitted that; but what Valhall's done is take that nugget of factual information, then molded it to conform with his theory that it was an EC-130H and that it forced the flight down.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

So what? Valhall's taken this statement by the FBI; "A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed" and deduced that it was in fact an EC-130H and that that plane brought the flight down.



No...and I'm not sure what your game is, but you need to stop trying to use my words in a different way than I speak them.

No - I had never seen the gazette statement about a C-130 being within 25 miles. The information I have stated in this post is from the Official 911 commission report:

I quote from that report:


The aircraft that spotted the "black smoke" was the same unarmed Air National Guard cargo plane that had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon 27 minutes earlier. It had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went down. At 10:17, the Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed.170


Please note that the estimated 10:05 time for the report of the black smoke is based on this statement "less than two minutes after the plane went down". And since the 911 Commission report lies about the time the plane went down and puts it at 10:03, that would put the report from the C130 at 10:05. So there is no "firm" time associated with the C130 communication in the official report.


We know there was a C-130 (or a variant of that aircraft) close to the scene of the crash site, the FBIs admitted that; but what Valhall's done is take that nugget of factual information, then molded it to conform with his theory that it was an EC-130H and that it forced the flight down.


Again, I'm going to ask you to refrain from your speculation as to what I am, have or will do. I did not mold anything with my theory. My theory was formulated from the data (that I have shared on this thread) that was pulled from the official report and news reports immediately after the event.

But I have taken all of the data - not just the C130.

Concerning the position of the plane. We could most likely get a rough estimate by taking the approximate time it left D.C. airspace and run some flightpaths.

The C130 left D.C. sometime after 9:38 when it confirmed Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon. Meanwhile Flight 93 was progressing toward D.C. We could work from there.


[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
We know there was a C-130 (or a variant of that aircraft) close to the scene of the crash site, the FBIs admitted that; but what Valhall's done is take that nugget of factual information, then molded it to conform with his theory that it was an EC-130H and that it forced the flight down.


First Val only claims that the EC-130 was responsible for the loss of communication with Flight 93 and the resulting power and communication problems on the ground near the crash site. Both of these are well with in the capabilities of the aircraft. The jamming may very well have contributed to the crash if it interfered with the aircraft's instruments. Remember these terrorists were not experienced airline pilots. The jamming could have caused them to overstress the airframe causing the aircraft to break up and crash. In my opinion this is more credable than the plane being shot down. Isn't a theory supposed to be an educated guess that fits within the facts?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
...do i have to repeat myself? We know it was a C-130 that was in the general area of the Flight 93 crash sight; what you're extrapolating from that fact is that it was an EC-130H and that that EW variant of the C-130 brought down the flight.

You've made this whole EC-130H thing up to conform with your Flight 93 conspiracy theory.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
And for the final time I will state "I have no Flight 93 conspiracy theory", other than what the data points to. I did not have a preconceived theory, the theory was developed based on the data.

I've said this almost a half dozen times now. If you make the same accusation against me in this thread, I will contact some one who will assist you in not derailing discussions.

You seem to think you are speaking to some one who has something they are married to. That might be your biggest mistake. I never get married to a theory. I never get obsessed with a theory. If I have an idea that I formulated based on analyzing the data, I share it. If it turns out to be false, I let go of it.

You will not be able to treat me like a narrow-minded individual, because I have far too much former work to prove you wrong.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
You're making the claim that it was an EC-130H...I don't see one shred of evidence to back up that claim, other than you've latched onto the fact that there WAS a C-130 in the vacinity of the crash site.

Lol, I bet when you came across that little fact you went to globalsecurity.org, looked through all the C-130 varients and got a chubby when you came across the EW version of the C-130. 'That suits my conspiracy theory perfectly.'



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I'm a girl.

and you're deft.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Lanton
We know there was a C-130 (or a variant of that aircraft) close to the scene of the crash site, the FBIs admitted that; but what Valhall's done is take that nugget of factual information, then molded it to conform with his theory that it was an EC-130H and that it forced the flight down.


First Val only claims that the EC-130 was responsible for the loss of communication with Flight 93 and the resulting power and communication problems on the ground near the crash site. Both of these are well with in the capabilities of the aircraft. The jamming may very well have contributed to the crash if it interfered with the aircraft's instruments. Remember these terrorists were not experienced airline pilots. The jamming could have caused them to overstress the airframe causing the aircraft to break up and crash. In my opinion this is more credable than the plane being shot down. Isn't a theory supposed to be an educated guess that fits within the facts?

So you're saying that the authorities realised that that plane was on it's way to hit something, probably the White House, so they just happened to have an EC-130H on hand, in the local area, to catch up with the flight and down it before it hit it's intended target?

Or are you saying that, as part of the overall government orchestrated 9/11 conspiracy, an EC-130H downed the flight?

I dunno which one of those two theories makes the least sense.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Val, its post #2066959 in this thread, and I agree with your assessment that the ANG C-130H that took off from somewhere near DC 8 minutes after the ground stop was on a special mission and had special capabilities. Your post I referenced ties it all together nicely and your reasoning deserves consideration and attention. Seems somebody doesn't want to hear about it.

We don't always agree about everything, but you do your homework well, and I know you don't come to conclusions lightly or without going through the proper process. Don't let this joker get to you.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Val, its post #2066959 in this thread, and I agree with your assessment that the ANG C-130H that took off from somewhere near DC 8 minutes after the ground stop was on a special mission and had special capabilities. Your post I referenced ties it all together nicely and your reasoning deserves consideration and attention. Seems somebody doesn't want to hear about it.

We don't always agree about everything, but you do your homework well, and I know you don't come to conclusions lightly or without going through the proper process. Don't let this joker get to you.

The Compass Call EC-130H is flown by the 355th Wing's 41st and 43rd Electronic Combat Squadrons, at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ (globalsecurity.org).

So unless that unit was involved in the conspiracy too, then it's highly unlikely that it was an EC-130H that was in the general vacinity of the crash site.

Where's the E V I D E N C E to back up the claim that it was an EC-130H? Like I said, all that Valhall's done is matched up the fact that a C-130 was in the general area of the crash site with the fact that there's an EW variant of the C-130. Valhall's taken a couple of facts and meshed them together with a pet conspiracy theory.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
OK, Lanton and esdad71, sure...

Sure Rumsfeld didn't admit that they shot it down, I know. I know. It's an urban legend...just like it's an urban legend that Rumsfeld said there were WMDs in Iraq.




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   


The Compass Call EC-130H is flown by the 355th Wing's 41st and 43rd Electronic Combat Squadrons, at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ (globalsecurity.org).


Oh, and you know for a fact that these are the only EC-130Hs around, do you? And how do you account for the EMP-like effect on surrounding communications equipment? And the official lie about the time of the crash? Still lots of holes you need to fill to debunk this one. Like I said, I agree with her reasoning.

I'd like to add that this aircraft is also the one that confirmed Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon. Very convenient.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Why does it seem that on every thread of this nature that there alwas seems to be someone who wants to destroy the thread or in someway derail the flow of what is being discussed? I mean I know this is ATS, a conspiracy oriented board, but I still think there should be a limit on how far things should be carried. I have yet to see where Val has made any statements other than theory on what might have happened. I went thru this same thing on one of my threads not long ago and I call it nit-picking.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
lanton...

she specifically states that she believes it to be an ec130 based on the evidence of electronic activity. she never definitively said it was an ec130.

and another thing.....are aircraft based at a certain airbase always located there? it's been my experience both in the navy and as a civilian air traffic controller that they tend to move about the world completing their missions.

oh, one more thing....i know youre new here, and while we all get kind of touchy sometimes when talking about stuff we believe strongly in, i'd tone it down a bit if i were you until you learn more about the people your getting nasty with. just a bit of friendly advice.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Look, I understand this is a conspiracy theory forum and the burdon of proof on posters like Valhall (conspiracy theory posters) is probably lower than on debunkers (like myself) but i'm still sort of shocked to see that so many posters have suddenly latched onto Valhall's theory (that it was an EC-130H, even though there's no evidence to support that theory) and, so far, i'm the only one asking for Valhall, or anyone for that matter, to provide us with that evidence.

It's just not enough to say 'oh well, the claim's been made that there was an EMP event in the area at the time of the crash....and there was a C-130 in the general area of the crashsite.....and there's an EW C-130 variant....which means that it was an EC-130H that downed the flight.'

I'm afraid that that's just not good enough, which is why no-one takes these conspiracy theories seriously; the same goes for little green men and tooth fairies.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join