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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If you will stop accusing me of something I have now told you is untrue six times in a row...we'll be able to communicate.

I would like you to now explain the following simultaneous events:

all cell phones went dead (we now learn the cell receiver on the tower went out)

the voice recorder went dead

the power grid went dead

and the land line phone system went dead

Please give me what event happened that caused all of these electronic/electrical systems to go dead at almost the same time.

[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Could you tell me what your source was for this info; "but at almost the same instance as the impact (which could be heard in the nearby town) THE ENTIRE POWERGRID, and LAND LINE PHONE SYSTEM...WENT DEAD."

On page three you made the claim that either an EC-130H worked together with another plane to bring the flight down, or that it brought the flight down by itself. You've since provided no evidence to back up the claim that the C-130 was in fact an EC-130H, that there even was an EW variant of the C-130 in the state or even in a neighbouring state.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
This is what I said on page 3


I think the C-130H was an EC-130H. I think the EC-130H either:

* jammed all electronic systems on the plane which rendered it silent, and then it was taken down by another craft (I'm not real happy with this theory

or

* took the plane down itself with its electronic jamming system. And I think that's what took out the neighboring power grid and land lines. (This is what I personally believe.)



Rick Yock, a bartender at the Indian Lake Resort, located two miles from the crash, was sitting at home, watching television with his mother. Planes had hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and now he felt a shivering explosion in rural Pennsylvania. The power went off in his house, the lights, the television. The phones went dead. He thought the whole country was under attack. - Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, pg 212.




[edit on 3-23-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Common sense tells us that if debris is falling over a 8 mile stretch, something caused it, right?


In this case, it was the descent and crashlanding of Flight 93.



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

Originally posted by Lanton
Could you tell me what your source was for this info; "but at almost the same instance as the impact (which could be heard in the nearby town) THE ENTIRE POWERGRID, and LAND LINE PHONE SYSTEM...WENT DEAD."


youve made it pretty clear that you arent reading all of the posts, or you would have noticed that the information you are looking for already is on this thread. making condescending posts without even reading the information is called ignorance my friend.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
This article does seem to indicate that there was a C-130 within at least 17 miles of flight 93, actually sent to intercept Flight 77, now I dont know what this implies or dosen't but everything to me points that there are a lot of unanswered questions to what really happened to Flight 93 and it really needs to start somewhere, so why not here. There is just so much information on the web in regards to this tragedy that one may wonder whether the truth will ever be known, but the quest has to start with just that, questions. And I know that many have been asked her on this site, and we still dont know the answers, so lets keep on questioning.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
cooperativeresearch is an awesome website. A bunch of people (like us) who just want to help each other collect data. I have found it very useful (and I haven't found anything on the site yet that I couldn't verify with sources) in studying 9/11.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
It's interesting that a C130 was seen in the area, wasn't there reports of one seen at the pentagoon also?

Coinkydink? Or mobile command centers...Hmmmmm



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Here's a little something I want to share, if for no other reason than it is interesting and comes from the day of the events and relates to the Flight 93 discussion.

Radiohead was playing a gig in Germany on September 11th and there happens to be a recording of the concert. At one point, Thom and Ed of the band are asking the crowd if they are aware of what has occured and go on to explain briefly the events of the day. As this was halfway through the concert, and in Germany, I would place the time somewhere between 9pm and 11pm local time in Germany. That's only a guess.. but six hours difference between Germany and New York places this recording somewhere in the early afternoon of September 11th: 2pm-4pm, most likely.

The relevant part to this discussion is that they seem to feel that Flight 93 was shot down, at least based on whatever the international news source they were listening to was reporting on the day of...

Obviously this doesn't prove anything, but I suppose it's a piece of the history of the day, nonetheless.. just wanted to share it for those who've never heard it.

Here's a link to the mp3 of the aforementioned conversation (plus a live version of Paranoid Android..
).rapidshare.de...


*edit for spelling

[edit on 23-3-2006 by quango]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Never really heard of the site Val, I just sort of stumbled upon it, but now I guess that I will check it out a bit more closley beings that you give it a thumbs up.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Lanton, go hijack another thread with your rhetoric. This thread is not about a C-130, we know it was there. We know what the variants are, and we are trying to come to a rational conclusion based on fact, not numerology or some left wing website.

There is good information that can be obtained and debated, and infantile outbursts and contradiction such as your as so obvious I won't even quote your mistakes to make it worse.

Please give us a better opinion than " I know this is ridiculous and never happened" and bakc it up with a few semi-credible links and some insight. You never know, you might learn something.


As was posted earlier, the C-130, Prowler and F-16 are used in conjunction with one another and we are to beleive it is coincidence all 3 were in the air, in the area, just before Flight 93 went down?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Did you notice the article you linked to on coop has a name for the C130 pilot. This is the first time I've seen a crew member named.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I saw that, Steve O'brien, also that he claims to have saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, but I still have my doubts about what actually hit the Pentagon, and Im inclined to believe it was not Fltr 77,at least not in the form of an airliner. But then again I guess this thread is really about Flt 93, so back on topic.

Anok, I think that it was the same C-130 that we are talking about, at the Pentagon and near Flt 93.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Lanton
Could you tell me what your source was for this info; "but at almost the same instance as the impact (which could be heard in the nearby town) THE ENTIRE POWERGRID, and LAND LINE PHONE SYSTEM...WENT DEAD."


youve made it pretty clear that you arent reading all of the posts, or you would have noticed that the information you are looking for already is on this thread. making condescending posts without even reading the information is called ignorance my friend.

Here's an example of ignorance; a person spins an interesting yarn and the rest sycophantically take that yarn on-board as having even the slightest grain of truth to it.

We know there was a C-130 in the general area of the crashsite - we know that an individual's claimed that at the time of the crash, his tv went off as did his mobile and the landline wouldn't work - we also know that there's a variant of the C-130; an EW variant, that's fielded by units based in Arizona.

Based on two facts and the testimony of a single individual, Valhall's cobbled together the theory that it was a EC-130H that brought the flight down. Now at no point in the 7+ pages of this thread has Valhall, or anyone else, come up with evidence that there was in fact an EC-130H in the general area of the crashsite, or that anyone saw one in the general area of the crashsite, or in the state or in neighbouring states at the time of the crash.

Why don't you do some research Valhall; after all, this is your theory and the burdon of proof's on you to cough up something, anything that would indicate an EC-130H did indeed bring down Flight 93.

In the real world, outside of these forums, you've got to actually provide EVIDENCE to back up claims like this. Otherwise people don't take you seriously; just have a look at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, they're a laughing stock now.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
esdad71, at what point did i contradict myself?

Clearly this thread isn't about the C-130, but I thought I might as well see what evidence Valhall's got to back up the EC-130H claim, and look what's happened; his argument's fallen apart under instense questioning.

We really do need a lot more people on these boards willing to take flak from the conspiracy theory trolls and actually ask people to cough up solid evidence to back up their claims.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Not to much up on these different aircraft, can someone tell me the difference between a C-130 and an EC-130H? From what I gather it seems to be the same aircraft but with a different weapon system, though i'm not sure. And it seems that their is already proof that there was a C-130 in the vicinity of Flt 93, so whats the issue, are they different aircraft or the same depending on the weapons system onboard?

Lanton why would someone want to come on a conspiracy board and want to disprove any theory that happens to be put out there, just curious about that as I've wondered for some time about that.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
there are two main things , in my humble opinion, are these.

with the current trial of mr. moussai going on, fbi agents have been coming forward stating that they were just about screaming that something was going on at these flight training areas. the higher ups basically said, " nothing to see here, move along." now most people will say that this is incompetence. if so why no one has been fired for this? but, agent samit? (name correct) stated that his efforts were STYMIED! WHY were they syymied?


2. thanks to our government, we were conditioned to act like this was pearl harbor in 1941, an act of war. two big differences. 1941, an official GOVERNMENT attacked us with their navy. 2001 was a smalll group (supposedly) that attacked us with no official government behind it.
now, taking that lead and if were to treat this this like a crime scene, which it should have been, then this is what one ,must do. hitting 500 men , al quaeda with our military is like playing whack a mole.
think like a cop. who had the motive, capability, and ability to pull this off. also and formost, who would this benefit most. true, osama would chalk this one up and it would be a big feather to show that a small group could hit us like this. i am not arguing that planes did not hit the buildings, (maybe not the pent.) and that osama did not have a hand in this. he did! i just think that he had a hand from some one else. whose early presidency was already in free fall? who had an entire staff that had a pre planned strategy (pnac) that required another pearl harbor to get the country behind their agenda? who has used this as excuse for just about everything done in his name? who had his vice pres and sec of def, within two hours demanding how can this be blamed on saddam? clearly, 9-11 benifited some one very much. osama? a little. he gets to crow and then hide out in a cave.

as for 93, out of all planes that day, this one had a debrie field behind it. this was the one high jacking that did not go off like it should have. why? this plane was delayed on take off! the others went off on time and made it to their targets. passengers try to retake the plane after hearing what went down. no argument there. brave men and women! but they had a pilot with them and from what seams to be accepted is that they made the cockpit. there were people on the ground ssaying there was a military looking plane looking like it was searching for something. a sonic boom was recorded on seismic instruments five minute before and after. an air traffic controller saying that he was following it onscope and that the f16 following it had to have seen it too! to all the doubters, the plane obliterated itself in the ground. that being said, the events before it crashed really need to be looked at!



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
Not to much up on these different aircraft, can someone tell me the difference between a C-130 and an EC-130H? From what I gather it seems to be the same aircraft but with a different weapon system, though i'm not sure. And it seems that their is already proof that there was a C-130 in the vicinity of Flt 93, so whats the issue, are they different aircraft or the same depending on the weapons system onboard?

The C-130's a transport aircraft, the EC-130H is an electronic warfare version of the same aircraft.

And yes we know there was a C-130 in the vicinity of the crashsite; i've personally said that at least a dozen times already, plus the dozens of times other people have said it. What no-one's been able to prove yet is that it was an EC-130H.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
So actually Lanton what you tell me is they are two different aircraft, a C-130 could not actually be an EC-130H in disgiuse, it would have to be an entirely different aircraft to have the weopons system of an EC-130H?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by tracer]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
So actually Lanton what you tell me is they are two different aircraft, a C-130 could not actually be an EC-130H in disgiuse, it would have to be an entirely different aircraft to have the weopons system.

Yes, they're two completely different beasts. It's like comparing a bog-standard C-130 to a C-130 Spectre gunship.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Lanton]




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join