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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
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.


I've read through every post and am still to see anyones(particularly Valhall's) argument fall apart.

And what intense questioning are you talking about.Yours!lol. Arent these guy's and gal's discussing theory's and trying to link together evidence.

I personally dont have a view either way just thought it was an interesting thread, you obviously have an agenda.

Good discussion peeps.




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Lanton
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.


I've read through every post and am still to see anyones(particularly Valhall's) argument fall apart.

And what intense questioning are you talking about.Yours!lol. Arent these guy's and gal's discussing theory's and trying to link together evidence.

I personally dont have a view either way just thought it was an interesting thread, you obviously have an agenda.

Good discussion peeps.

So where, pray tell, has Valhall coughed up evidence linking an EC-130H to the crash of Flight 93?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It's interesting that a C130 was seen in the area, wasn't there reports of one seen at the pentagoon also?


already covered....it was most likely the same one.



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.


ok, maybe i was too nice. maybe youre not ignorant, just too damn stupid to understand what everyone here is telling you. she is making an educated guess based on the data at hand. no one here has said that any of the information given is definite. if you disagree that is your perogative, but you dont berate someone else for what they have extrapolated from the evidence.....especially when you have as of yet to offer anything even remotely resembling evidence to refute what val has painstakingly put together over the last few months (i know she's been at it awhile because she has grilled me about air traffic procedures many times).



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.


nor has anyone stated categorically that it was definitely an ec130. you dont seem to understand the difference between stating something to be a theory and stating it to be fact.



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.


she has offered quite a bit of evidence, and believe me, it is only a very small percentage of what she has put together. if you want to refute that evidence, why dont you do a little research yourself.....or are you just too damned ignorant? i mean, afterall, you have proven time and time again that you are too lazy to even read the information that has already been presented.



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.


and you have as of yet to show us one single bit of evidence to contradict what she has provided (evidence that once again, you appear not to have read before you went off half-cocked). put up or shut up.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Its a theory dude, a discussion, throwing ideas out there, wheres your evidence that that particular aircraft wasnt in the vicinity.
Do you have access at the highest levels to say to us all that it happened exactly as has been reported.
Of course not, and if you do have that sort of clearance then we do know what your agenda is.

This, so it seems to me, is a discussion of what could of possibly happened, treat it as such and if you have an alternative view then put it across. Without personal attacks and baiting.
And when asking for evidence, it helps if you can provide some yourself.Just my opinion from an unbiased observer. Im in australia and found the discussion so far interesting, until you tried to derail it. These theory's are not common knowledge here, lets discuss, debate and theorise without knee jerk reactions. Information is power!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
After looking at some photos of the two planes involved in this thread the C-130 and the EC-130H does anyone here think that its possible that one might be mistaken for the other? I think that on viewing them both they definitely have similarites and one could be mistaken for the other. And the government could tell us anything, it could have been a EC-130H and they just told us , oh its only a C-130. I dont put nothing past the powers that be.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Have to agree with mojo, this is a disscusion of theories and ideas and really Lanton you have yet to offer anything to refute any of whats been disscused, so it really would help if you have some evidence to the contrary, I for one would like nothing more than to prove or eliminate any theory of what happened on 9/11, thats one less piece of the puzzle people have to deal with in such a complex tragedy that has befallen our country.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
After looking at some photos of the two planes involved in this thread the C-130 and the EC-130H does anyone here think that its possible that one might be mistaken for the other? I think that on viewing them both they definitely have similarites and one could be mistaken for the other. And the government could tell us anything, it could have been a EC-130H and they just told us , oh its only a C-130. I dont put nothing past the powers that be.


That's because the EC-130H is a modified version of the C-130. Same outside, different inside. lol

Take a look:

www.af.mil...

[edit on 24-3-2006 by SourGrapes]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Okay Sour Grapes Ive already looked at the photos, so am Im correct in thinking you agree with my statement that it could have been an EC-130H and not a C-130, thats all Im trying to get across.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
Okay Sour Grapes Ive already looked at the photos, so am Im correct in thinking you agree with my statement that it could have been an EC-130H and not a C-130, thats all Im trying to get across.


Anyways

Since noone else has brought it up I might as well.

It was not a C-130 or EC130H, It was either a missile painted like one or it was a Global Hawk.

My proof...
if people can mistake missiles and global hawks for 757's then they will probably mistake them for C-130's as well.

Also, if you look at the photo on the first page of this thread, the taxi has obviously been moved.

If you disagree with me you are obviously a COINTELPRO spreading your government sanctioned lies.

maybe I should start a new thread...




9/11 An EC-130H *DID NOT* Bring Down Flight 93



On Topic

I find this to be an interesting thread, at least its the most believable theory out there. I've actually pondered the possibility of flight 93 being shot down as well.



[edit on 24/3/06 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
Okay Sour Grapes Ive already looked at the photos, so am Im correct in thinking you agree with my statement that it could have been an EC-130H and not a C-130, thats all Im trying to get across.


Absolutely! I've got yer back, lol.

Lanton (wierd this ATSer is new, screen name seems familiar) is obviously bored and looking for an argument. He must not be aware this site is about squashing conspiracy theories, not inventing them. At least, that's how it was back in the day! Valhal and Edsdad are a few of the valued original conspiracy 'ploinkers'.

I, very rarely, come to this site these days; seems it's been taken over by juvenile 'hearsayers' who are excited to spread their theories abroad. I'm happy to see a topic that hasn't been beat to death. Although, I do have to admire Lanton for not being a push over. He/she seems to have the very type of cynical debate this site is lacking, just a little less offensive.

Check this out:

Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m.). [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/11/02; Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01]


Found here: www.cooperativeresearch.org...

[edit on 24-3-2006 by SourGrapes]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   


Lanton (wierd this ATSer is new, screen name seems familiar)


There is a poster who goes by Lanotom.
Perhaps thats why it sounds familiar.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



Lanton (wierd this ATSer is new, screen name seems familiar)


There is a poster who goes by Lanotom.
Perhaps thats why it sounds familiar.


Must be!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Saying the EC-130H is to the C-130H as the C-130 gunship is to the C-130H isn't a valid comparison.

The give-a-way on an armed C-130 gunship would be the cannon sticking out of the side of it...that would be a visual clue even my grandson would be able to detect as being "not just a C-130".

The EC-130H looks virtually identical to the C-130H.

www.af.mil...

www.af.mil...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Valhall, your statement about the EC-130 got me thinking. I think that having an EC-130 in the area, manned and ready to take off at the exact time necessary to intercept Flight 93 over an open countryside is a little bit too much of a coincidence. However an EA-6B Prowler has the capability to do pretty much the same thing that you have the EC-130 doing. Now for the interesting part. There are TWO EA-6Bs based at the Naval Air Test Center at Pax River, Maryland and guess what else? They are both painted WHITE! An EA-6B would have the speed necessary to intercept Flight 93 and its jamming would be capable of causing the blackout and communications disruptions.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
That is an interesting find, Jim!

Is there anything else in the electronic flying weaponry department that more closely matches the eye witness descriptions of the white plane? (i.e. a wide horizontal tail with two vertical fins? - I'll take that in white, please!)



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Flight 93 came down before the Air Force could shoot it down.


I remember seeing on TV plenty of witness' on the ground who
saw the plane flying very low, shooting by VERY fast, and then
slamming into the ground. Plenty. Some were worried because
there was a school semmi-nearby where it came down. One
witness said it was traveling so fast that they refer to it as
'the bullet' when talking about what happened that day.

They said that a few minutes after it crashed then the airforce
planes arrived.

I remember these from TV ..... so I have no links.

IMHO - there were shoot down orders but the airforce never
got a chance to shoot ... the plane came down before they could
get there.


VALHALL - you mentioned the cell phones not working.
I remember trying to call my husband in Philly.
None of the phones worked. I tried to call others. I couldn't get
anyone. They all rang 'busy' or didn't ring at all. The phone system
was simply overloaded. Everyone on the planet who had a phone
was on it trying to get ahold of everyone else. At least that's my
opinion of the situation. Simple overload of the phone system.





[edit on 3/24/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
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...


At one point everyone was saying that there were 8 planes down.

On 9/11 my parents were sitting on an American Airlines plane at
JFK. Everyone was taken off the plane and they were told by
airline workers that 8 planes had come down. One of the workers
was crying when he told my parents that.

There was a lot of misinformation and rumors flying that day.

Now ... a more interesting tidbit. Prior to everyone being taken off
my parents AA plane no one knew about the events that were happening. The airlines just kept everyone on board and kept saying that they couldn't
take off due to mechanical problems. My parents said that there were
a couple of men ('spanish or middle eastern looking' to quote them) who
were on the flight and who got VERY aggitated that the plane wasn't
taking off. They were very upset and kept demanding immediate takeoff.

When everyone was asked to leave the plane 'due to mechanical problems'
(there weren't problems ... it was because everyone was grounded at
that point) ... the men ran off the plane and ran out of the terminal. They
took no bags and they were never seen again. My parents say that the
terminal officials were looking for them, but couldn't find them.

Was this another hijacking that was thwarted when the planes were
grounded???? My parents believe so.

Wonder how many others were scheduled to come down?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
excellent excellent research everyone!!!
i am thrilled to see that this particular aspect of 9/11 is being discussed out here.

well done!!


lanton................it would be alot easier to give you some attention if you ACTUALLY read the thread from beginning to end...............you TOTALLY discount your arguements by continually proving over and over that YOU have not done your OWN research by FULLY READING this thread.

and secondly..............you might want to go and read other threads that VALHALL has been involved with...............the lady FULLY researches and she definitely knows her stuff. she's a long standing member out here and one that has earned a great deal of respect from this community. so you talking to her as if she's a mindless IDIOT does not win you any friends out here.

its perfectly fine to disagree with someone..................but to SKILLFULLY debate without turning it personal AND still be able to make your points is a very valuable skill and one that takes alot of practice to fully master. val is a pro and you my friend proved yourself to be less than informed (you wouldn't even read the full thread that you were being so critical
:@@
and by NOT reading the thread you continued to erroneously question where information came from when it was PLAINLY posted in front of your face had you only bothered to read the information.

as a newbie out here you have alot to learn..................and i'd start with reading ANY thread in its entireity BEFORE throwing in your 2cents worth.

BACK ON TOPIC

again guys GREAT POST. EXCELLENT RESEARCH FROM BOTH YOU GUYS!!

thanks again!!

angie



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I think the only thing that may be hanging Lanton up is that he may have come to this board with a preconceived notion of what the members are like. The stereotypical 'conspiracy theorist' who becomes obsessed with one singular thought and is willing to "go down with the ship" before abandoning a flawed theory. ATS tends to be populated more with 'critical thinkers' - the OTHER WHITE MEAT, or, in the case, the OTHER C.T.

I don't have "a conspiracy theory" about Flight 93. Lanton keeps accusing me of "fitting the data to the theory" when in actuality what I have done - and I have no problem admitting this because it's simply critical thinking at work - is try to find a theory that fits the data. I'm not trying to convince anybody of that theory, so I'm not going to waste my time on this thread arguing to convince Lanton, or anyody else. I'm actually okay if EVERYBODY rejects my theory. The value of ATS to me is to be able to either read another member's theory and take it into my mental database, perform logical analysis and see if my "logic ethic" can accept it as a possibility (note NOT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH) or reject it as illogical, or (and of equal value) is the fact I can share a theory I might have, and see how other members' "logic ethic" outputs further parameters, algorithms, etc. that either refine the theory, grow the theory, or kill the theory (either in part or in totality).

While I tire of having to do this when I speak on any given topic on this board, and while I loathe having to see another member have to do this when they speak on a given topic on this board, I will state my position concerning 9/11, which has been indirectly misrepresented by Lanton's repetitive erroneous insinuations...

I do not believe the 9/11 attacks were some U.S. governmental conspiracy...that's my personal belief. The only complicity the U.S. government had in the overall day's events, IMO, was that of varying levels of incompetency that allowed it to happen. That's not a conspiracy, it's a trajedy. So when I started studying the 9/11 Commission Report it wasn't with some preconceived idea that the "conspiracy would be in there", or that I'd find some smoking gun. Instead, I read the report to know what the findings were (novel concept, I know). But within that report were some things surrounding Flight 93 that made me want to study that particular flight more in-depth. And I now personally believe there is/was a cover-up concerning the real events surrounding "the end" of flight 93. That's not a conspiracy in my mind (because to me conspiracy denotes plotting, planning and carrying out something covert), but instead it was a cover-up (i.e. you lie about the action you decided to take). I personally believe if Flight 93 was taken down it was the right thing to do. But, again I repeat, lying about it wasn't.

[edit on 3-24-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Valhall

If I had to bet on it I would say that the mysterious white plane that you are looking for might be a Navy E-2C Hawkeye. The Hawkeye is a small AWAC aircraft. The tail of this plane consists of two vertical stabilizers at each end of the horizontal stabilizer. It also has two more vertical stabilizers mounted inboard on the horizontal stabilizer. The inboard vertical stabilizers may not be visible to someone on the ground. I have heard that the Hawkeye may have some jamming capability but I can’t confirm that. Hawkeyes are usually painted white and there are some based both at Pax River, Maryland and at Oceania, Virginia.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join