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.

 

U.S. Secretary of Defense admits Flight 93 was Shot Down

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I believe it was shot down. Many of the coroner's at the Flight 93 crash site said they found no body's. They also said the crash site was scattered and not like any plane crash they have seen. Also MANY witnesses stated they saw two planes in the air, and an explosion in the air. So either there was a bomb on board like the "terrorists" stated on the communications radios, or NORAD did shoot it down, and they didn't want to release that info because of the innocent people on board, and their family's. OR there was a "terrorist" with the correct weapon like a SA-7 GRAIL on the ground, that shot down the Flight 93, and they didn't want to release that info because then NO ONE would every fly again. I remember a while back some news channel did a whole bit on handheld surface to air heat seeking missiles, and how easy it would be for a terrorist to shoot a passenger jet at the local airport. Then they also explained how Lockheed will mass develop a laser device that can track and terminate said weapons before they do any damage. I thought to myself why they would be covering this subject out of the blue, but i think they just answered that for me.

On the video, look at the reaction of the people in the background right when he said "shot down the plane in pennsylvania", it didn't go unnoticed.

But after watching the movie for a second time I noticed he said "THE PEOPLE that shot down the plane in pennsylvania"... I'm begining to think there WAS a terrorist on the ground with a surface to air handheld heat seeking missile such as the SA-7 GRAIL.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   


but I very seriously doubt he would have made a mistake or slipped up that bad.

The stuff he had to go through to even get the post he's in now, there is no way he would muck up that horribly.

IMO, there is no way for someone of Rumsfeld's caliber to slip up that much.


Yeah kind of like that day I saw Rumsfeld on TV (this was in early 2003 before the Iraq Invasion) - He was talking about the Terrorists & he kept saying "Saddam Hussein" when he was supposed to be saying "Osama Bin Laden". He did it at least THREE TIMES in a row!

Now one of two things must have happened:

A) He is getting too old for the Job.

B) He got his "Scripts" mixed up!!!

Got to go after the Bad Guy that WE OURSELVES sold weapons to (enter that famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussien in the 70's or early 80's - there should be a copy of it somewere here on ATS) - better call up Fox News and tell them that the "Iraq Campaign" is now officially part of the "War on Terror" & to muck up the Issue as much as possible!

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
And Bush said he saw the first(?) plane crash into the WTC on TV in the goat-story school, eventhough there were no TVs. If I was of a suspicious nature, I might suspect the administration were not being entirely on the level about 9/11...



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by Art0_Saar1
if you dont know this then here it is. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was very strange. Dick cheney told all Generals to keep thier air crafts down on the ground no matter what.... Well at one of the airbases they noticed there was an aircraft showing up on thier radar, and they has already heard the news about the 2 WTCs being hit. So the general ignored cheney's call to keep all aircrafts on land. The general ordered 2 f-15s to shoot it down, and thats what happened.

Why keep this on the down low? Well they never wanted anybody to know cheney made that order in the first place cuz it would raise major suspision. So they when with the Story of the passengers taking the terrorist down and then crashing, too bad it doesnt make sense at the crash scene...... No plane , just parts scattered over a huge distance of land. People from the area also reported hearing the roaring engines of the jet fighters but that too was kept hush hush.

If you believe what they said happened on 9/11 then id say your a genius

cuz only a genius could see how that story makes any sense





please provide evidence to such claims


You're theory sounds very plausable but I would like to see some documentation on it as well.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
HOOOOOOOOOOOw caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnn theeeeeeeeey shhoooot pppppppeople dddddown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!

i never trusted any government,they just get alot of dough playing the world,hiding everything that will endanger their "game"! hushing everyone that knows their stuff.whats the CIA for? assasinating people!
wht do we keep that much nukes? why cant we just fire them into space and forget about them?you think the arabs are the real terrorists?think again

[Mod edit - Link removed. Please review ATS's Terms And Conditions Of Use


You will not use images, avatars or link to domains that contain gore, mutilation,pornography or illegal content.

Thank you.
]


[edit on 3-6-2006 by King Henry]


[edit on 3/6/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

But after watching the movie for a second time I noticed he said "THE PEOPLE that shot down the plane in pennsylvania"... .I'm begining to think there WAS a terrorist on the ground with a surface to air handheld heat seeking missile such as the SA-7 GRAIL

[edit on 3-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]


Not to say you're incorrect, but that's a bit unlikely..



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Even if you account for the fact that our bodies are mostly water, it does kinda make you wonder
after very tedious searches of the crash site, that the flight 93 coroner only managed to gather less than 800 pounds of human remains.

800 pounds from 44 people.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Again everybody, if UA 93 was shot down, where did the fuselage land? Obvioulsy it wouldn't have still been traveling at almost 600mph and completely disappear in the soil if there was a big gapping hole in it from a missile or whatever.

I USED to think it was shot down to, but I see no evidence of a 100 ton plane with THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel on board crashing anywhere. I only see a man-made hole with no plane parts around it and a small blast into the adjacent trees that didn't produce much fire and didn't even seem to burn the forest's ground!



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I don't see how a short video byte can prove anything. Its kind of hard to tell wether or not this is being taken out of context without hearing the entire speech. He could have been talking about something different. Those people were looking off to their left, and it could have been someone walking into the door, and you know how people will turn their heads when a lone straggler walks in late during someones speech. It wasn't like their mouths dropped and they were looking at rumsfeld, they were looking in another direction.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Rumsfeld is not saying the United States Air Force shot down the plane. He is insinuating that it was shot down by "Terrorists". His memory is slipping, he forgot the transcript he was suppose to follow, but with all lies sooner or later they will be exposed.

How much more evidence is needed before the round up is executed?


OOOH!

So now the hijackers jacked figher jets too? Wow. These flunkies could not only fly jumbo jets, but also fighter jets, even though they had trouble flying Cessnas...




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
there is another point to ponder in this. out of all planes that day,3 of them took off like theywere supposed to, on time. 93 did not. it was delayed around 40 minutes. consider the person in control of evetns that day. three of your targets had been hit ( i mean the planes.) the 4th there is now a problem. because of the delay, the passengers on this one are well aware of what is going thanks to cell phones. they attempt to retake the plane. one of the passengers is a pilot and could possibly land the plane. if they accomplish this and there are survivors, witnesses. if you have something to hide, you do want witnesses. you have to get this back under your control. how do you get rid of these witnesses if they accomplish this? answer, you can not let that plane land, you have to shoot it down.

there are other things to that point to a jet in the area. seismic readers picked up a sonic boom around 5 minutes before and a few minutes after the crash. people on the ground reported debrie falling from the plane 8 miles before it crashed. people on the ground witnessing a military looking jet flying like it was looking for something. a reporter talking to a air traffic controller, who stated that they were tracking 93 the entire time, as well as the f-16 that was following it. he has since been gagged by the fbi. another a.t.c. recieving a call from a passenger on 93 who said that he was in the bath room and that there was some sort of explosion and that there was smoke. he too has been gagged. a LARGE part of the engine found almost a mile away. they said that it bounced there? where are the gouge marks from the bouncing? how could that be if the plane nose dived. if this engine could survive a nose dive, how those of the plane at the pentagon did not?

just a couple of things. hopefully they are intersting.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Blackthorne, can you provide some links with your post, it would help strengthen your argument.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
i have remembered reading these past few years. i know what you mean by way links and i wish i could recall all the publishings where i have read these. i have only recently joined this site and have not really had the opportunity to talk with like minded people. author david griffin is one who has good books on this. another author who assisted comedien richard belzer in his serious (but funny) on jfk and ufos has a few good books.

it was this last person who i wish i could recall that noticed it was the same firm that removed the steel from the murray building in oklahoma city as it was with the world trade centers.

i am not pulling this stuff out of thin air. i read so much that it is hard to keep track. as to the hypothetical reason for 93 to be shot down, think like a criminal or some one who was on a mission. for a plan with one large objective but with multiple parts to be able to succeed, they all have to be synchronized almost perfectly. if your first targets hit but one has a problem with a fourth and it could possibly jeapordize your ultimate goal and identity, you abort it asap. i wish i could remember where i read it, but 93 was delayed from taking off by almost 40 minutes. as to the seismic readings, the local (for that area) usgs reported that. it has probably changed it since.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Why no long smoke trail emitting into the sky from UA 93 if it were shot down and crashed?





posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The government are liars and thats all you can really say about it. Maybe the plane was shoot down maybe not but everyone know the government lies what good would it do exposing everything that they know



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   


Got to go after the Bad Guy that WE OURSELVES sold weapons to (enter that famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussien in the 70's or early 80's - there should be a copy of it somewere here on ATS)


Hey I found that picture of our Best Buddies - circa: Dec. 20th, 1983 to be exact =

www.gwu.edu...



Hey I think I know were Saddam got WMD from... US(U.S.)! I believe everything that Rumsfeld says - he sure has his sh*t together!



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Why no long smoke trail emitting into the sky from UA 93 if it were shot down and crashed?


Maybe because the bottom picture wasn't taken at a crash site occuring at an old strip mine site, which in crude terms, 'swallowed up' the aircraft impacting at extremely high velocity. I also doubt the aircraft in the top pisture even hit the ground at a similar speed. Completely different scenarios, it would be like using data from a car crashing into a pile of boxes to predict the outcome of a crash into a brick wall.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
i have remembered reading these past few years. i know what you mean by way links and i wish i could recall all the publishings where i have read these. i have only recently joined this site and have not really had the opportunity to talk with like minded people. author david griffin is one who has good books on this. another author who assisted comedien richard belzer in his serious (but funny) on jfk and ufos has a few good books.

it was this last person who i wish i could recall that noticed it was the same firm that removed the steel from the murray building in oklahoma city as it was with the world trade centers.

i am not pulling this stuff out of thin air. i read so much that it is hard to keep track. as to the hypothetical reason for 93 to be shot down, think like a criminal or some one who was on a mission. for a plan with one large objective but with multiple parts to be able to succeed, they all have to be synchronized almost perfectly. if your first targets hit but one has a problem with a fourth and it could possibly jeapordize your ultimate goal and identity, you abort it asap. i wish i could remember where i read it, but 93 was delayed from taking off by almost 40 minutes. as to the seismic readings, the local (for that area) usgs reported that. it has probably changed it since.



Here are some links to back up Blackthorne's statement:

www.flight93crash.com...

www.oilempire.us...



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Why no long smoke trail emitting into the sky from UA 93 if it were shot down and crashed?


Most likely different nature of crash
And I'd say also a different time passing between the crash and the picture.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
OR there was a "terrorist" with the correct weapon like a SA-7 GRAIL on the ground, that shot down the Flight 93
[edit on 3-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]


Unlikely. SA-7 or any derivative or equal weapon has a limited ceiling and won't reach into a jet liner level. That's why it's considered a threat on landing/takeoff - the aircraft is moving slowly, with many restrictions to maneuvering and most of all rather low.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join