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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Its ok Val...

I think the serious posters can pretty much ignore people who distract from the topic...

By the way... how they hangin there pard? seems someone would catch that your a female if they even read half the posts in this thread (been commented, and corrected many times..)

As of now:
An EMP effect occurred in the area very close to the time of crash...99% sure at this point... due mainly to the power going out, more than the phones (since there could have been a system overload)

A C130 (or variant) was in the area... and was exempt or disregarding orders from the ground...(maybe was being used as a visual confirmation plane, or mobile command center at that point. (also was coincedentally same plane that saw flight 77 hit)

there were 1 or 2 other planes of unknown design, and unknown ownership in the area. (strong suspicion that one was F16, and another was "white")
There appears thru all official documents as well as testimony from survivors relatives, that there is 3 minutes missing from the tape.

Is there any element I am missing?
because with this alone, there is a pretty good theory developing that fits the data (all on its own... ahhh a bouncing baby theory... shall we name it Harold?)

IMO an EMP might have taken down the plane, but 99.8% sure it took out the power and phones of the area (including on the plane)...

I want to know what planes fit this eyewitness account of the white plane?
it sounds a little wacky to be a common plane...(executive jet)
Just saw your post, thanks JIM



[edit on 24-3-2006 by LazarusTheLong]




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
first let me correct my last post. the first comment was directed at anok, and the rest was directed at lantom.....but i forget to include lantom in his first quote, so it looks as if the whole thing is quoted from anok.....sorry, man.

laz....

the military uses lear jets and gulfstream jets as VIP aircraft and they are usually painted white. it could be that one of these was called into action to assist in the location of flight 93.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I've been thinking about the aircraft described as flying low overhead near the crash site, and the description sounds to me very much like an A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog).




With the horizontal tail and two verticals, not to mention the two engines mounted aft on the sides of the fuselage.. This aircraft has air to air capability as well as a 37mm gatling gun that fires conventional cannon rounds as well as DU tankkillers. It could easily have brought down Flt 93.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   


An EMP effect occurred in the area very close to the time of crash...99% sure at this point... due mainly to the power going out, more than the phones (since there could have been a system overload)


Was it the whole area? I thought (could be wrong) that what val posted stated that it was only one house.




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.



Are there sources saying it was the whole area, or is it confined to only one house?

I'm thinking the plane crashed into the trench where the mans utilities are run underground to his house.





I want to know what planes fit this eyewitness account of the white plane?


HMMMMM....

PARODY FOLLOWS




and with two upright fins





It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.


I'm leaning more and more towards....




IT WAS A GLOBAL HAWK!








[edit on 24/3/06 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ok, here's the description I was referring to, from Val's post #: 2067602, post id: 2092638, external source.



"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."


That's what I'm talking about!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
That's entirely possible skibum. Nice find. One thing though, it is entirely possible that one of the aircraft mentioned here or one that we haven't heard of was in the area when Flight 93 crashed. I am not disputing the communications interruption or the power failure. Someone that I trust lives near the crash site and confirmed the replacement of cellular phone equipment in the area. I am also not disputing the presence of unidentified aircraft in the area, that has been pretty much confirmed. My question is this "Do you believe that there just happened to be aircraft with the capabilities described in this thread in the area or there were aircraft that just happened to be in position to act?" I know what it takes to launch aircraft that are in an alert status, let alone launching them cold. I also know what it would take for such an aircraft to get permission to use its jamming capability for something like this. I don't see it happening in the so called confusion that was supposed to be going on that morning. I don't know what, but there is alot more to this than meets the eye. This is what interests me about this whole event.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Can you give us some evidence of airliners shot out of the sky that would prove that shooting down an airliner will cause a larger debris field? There is also debris spread over a 8 mile area, is this not enough to fit your own thoery, just curious?
..



The nature of blast fragmentation warheads alone is reason enough to look for debris, if the plane explodes mid-air, there's nothing left to argue.

8 sq mile area littered with stuff? yes, that would do nicely, will have to look more into this...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I am pleased that so many have come forward with their own constructive ideas and for pointing out holes or alternative theories to Flight 93.

www.flight93crash.com...

The small white jet theory

The small white jet was explained to be a Business jet that was in the area that was told by unidentifiable air controllers to see if they could locate the crash scene. This is the FBI's story about the white jet.

This information was released the day after the DOD admitted to be trailing that Flight 93, and we know that AWAC aircraft were up in the air. This is in the 9/11 testimony and Cheney himself said it.

Now, it then states that the FBI does not know where the C-130 was going to or coming from. If they knew there was a C-130 though, why was the business jet diverted? Wouldn't the C-130 have been the logical choice since it is military and not civilian?

So, how do we track down the Jet?

Populare Mechnics did it for us,

The co-pilot of the jet, was Yates Gladwell. He confirmed that he was contacted to investigate after the crash. It was a small business jet and the owner of the company has confirmed it was there, and that it was contacted. However, this still does not explain why they would ask a civilian jet when there is military presence.

There are loose ends here, and some end in locked doors and missing links.





[edit on 24-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
note - The passengers of Flight 93 were heroes, and I in no way want this post to convey otherwise, it was jsut too late.
[edit on 23-3-2006 by esdad71]


You said it, They need to put a "hero" in place, so there will be a good side to the stroy. In every war there are "heroes" and "evil doer's" why would this be different. doesnt the idea of them taking the plane down them selfs sound better then us taking it down?
after all was said and done and the U.S. was plotting a fight with "who ever" , the people wanted a "good role model". what more do they need?
lets roll...bla bla, it has to start some where, and i feel of the people but the truth is....it happened and it would again if the VP is put in that place.
That is why he is the VP, safety if frist and will be before the "needs" of the people. The "need" to keep the poeple in power, to have them stay in power is high in the "need" area.

but hey that is my idea nothing more.

It is what it is.
Do you want to know how or what shot it down?
Is this for you or for the people?
Or are you bored and need to know that another plane was shot by another plane that could or could not be manned?
It is what it is nothing more.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by CORF]

[edit on 24-3-2006 by CORF]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Very good question on the extent of the power failure! I definitely jumped to a conclusion.

BUT...it appears to have been more than just Mr. York's house...

www.usnewslink.com...


Shanksville-Stonycreek Elementary school, two miles from Flight 93's impact site, was evacuated after the crash knocked out electrical power to the school. The Mayor of the nearby borough of Indian Lake called the utility company when power to his small town was disrupted by the crash. In the days to follow, photographs of the impact point showed a newly repaired power line stretching over the scene, leading to the reasonable conclusion that the airliner severed the wires as it hit the ground.

The time of the outage, however, remains strangely unverifiable.



This article does point out that photographs taken in the following days show a "newly repaired power line", so this could be the answer to the power grid failure.

Now we need to find the cause(s) of the cell tower receiver going dead, the voice recorder going dead, and the land line phone system going dead.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   


I am not disputing the communications interruption or the power failure. Someone that I trust lives near the crash site and confirmed the replacement of cellular phone equipment in the area.


I'll take your word for it (though further confirmation would be much appreciated), I had only seen the one reference to power etc. going out and that was only the one house.




I am also not disputing the presence of unidentified aircraft in the area, that has been pretty much confirmed.


I agree. I also think it was actually some sort of C-130 . The Global Hawk is more me being an arse.


Thats why I prefaced it with PARODY FOLLOWS.
The "Truth Movement" or whatever they go by, get to use snippets and ignore the rest of the statements when fabricating a theory, It's only fair that everyone else does as well.




My question is this "Do you believe that there just happened to be aircraft with the capabilities described in this thread in the area or there were aircraft that just happened to be in position to act?"


Its possible, of course many things are possible.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
I'll take your word for it (though further confirmation would be much appreciated), I had only seen the one reference to power etc. going out and that was only the one house.


My brother in law's brother Tim's family lives near the crash site in Shanksville. After the crash they stayed with us for about six days before they were allowed to go back to their home. When Tim got back home it was still another week before he could use his cellular phone from his house.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Great work on this from everyone! Lots of new ideas that could fit nicely with the documented "facts" surrounding the 'downing' of flight 93 and explaining several of the flaws in those official facts.

Major kudos to esdad and valhall for bringing this up and for doing some excellent research and deductive reasoning, then sharing their conclusions/suspicions with us all. I think this is going to become another of the 'legendary' threads on ATS that will keep people coming back for a long time.

Lanton....what are we going to do with you? My answer: ignore him/her...very obviously either a simple troll like you find on all message boards or worse yet, some sort of debunker/disinformation spreader with an agenda. Either way, s/he is someone that refuses to read what is actually presented and tries to dispute it (or attack other posters' credibility )anyway.

Lanton reminds me all over again that my one wish for this site would be for an ignore feature that would allow me to tell the site that I don't ever want to see anything posted by a specified user again. This would save us all a lot of time and grief by being able to completely skip over those posters that are simply trying to disrupt discussions without actually refuting or contributing anything.

Oh well, enough sort of on topic ranting from me, back to your regularly scheduled debating and collaborative speculation.

Keep it coming folks, I'm excited to see what more can be dug up on this topic!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Uh, Jaryn, the ignore button is right under the avatar on every member's posts. From the lack of response my posts to this thread are getting, I get the impression some members have already used it on me. Oh well, their loss.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Uh, Jaryn, the ignore button is right under the avatar on every member's posts. From the lack of response my posts to this thread are getting, I get the impression some members have already used it on me. Oh well, their loss.


OMG! I can't believe I never noticed that before...disregard my comments above!


[edit on 3/24/2006 by Jaryn]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Uh, Jaryn, the ignore button is right under the avatar on every member's posts. From the lack of response my posts to this thread are getting, I get the impression some members have already used it on me. Oh well, their loss.


I'm not ignoring you Icarus. I'm trying to find your damned plane. It sounds familiar to me.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I have contacted a media source in Philadelphia and submitted some questions about the power failure, land-line phone system failure and the cell tower receiver failure.

I have requested a contact name and number/email if they are unable to answer my questions.

I will share whatever I find out here.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Jaryn,

There is an Ignore button under peoples avatars. I've never used it myself because I feel everyone's opinion has some value even if it's utterly rediculus (not anyone in particular here).

On-topic. I think Valhall et all have some great points here. So, let me get this straight. There were 3 confirmed planes in the area? The F-16, C-130 and private jet right? But, this doesn't account for the white plane described by eyewitnesses. So, there had to be at least a fourth plane in the area? Am I correct so far? Just want to make sure I'm getting this correct.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
www.post-gazette.com...

This is also a good article written on 9/12. It gives good eyewitness accoutns directly from a source and immediatley following the crash.

What were the booms that were heard?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The Prowler and the Warthog are both subsonic, so it must have been the Falcon that was in the area, if they were sonic booms. What other cause could have made those booms, transformers blowing from the EMP burst?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join