It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:23 PM
honestly, i think a majority of america knows something stinks.
i believe most are in shock that their country would allow something
like this to happen. there are entirely too many things fishy about that
day. hence the interest in ron paul. paul is smart enough to know the military industrial complex will make him disappear. i believe eisenhour
said something about their power to "sway" also. it's obvious because
of the simpleminded rhetoric used when they are questioned. "an insult
to the affected families", "an insult to our troops".....not many are that
stupid. but they are in shock to the point of not allowing themselves to
accept the truth. quite a shame.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Boone 870

Does the author have any sources substantiating his claim that the aircraft accident exercise was done in December of 2000?

Thanks for the post Boone 870. Let me respectfully suggest that you do not understand the big picture here.

Let me respectfuly clue you in.

First, there was this Conspiracy by someone in our government. They had access to high tech equipment and were able to conceive, plan and execute what is called "911" for purposes that include the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, porbably Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.

We, the public, are supposed to think at Arab Hijackers pulled 911 off atr the behest of Oasama bin Laden. Anybody with higher than a kindergarten education knows this is not true.

Although the perpetrators tried very carefully to cover their tracks there were very serious mistakes made which they were not able to account for.

Since September 11, 2001 the perpetraters have had hundreds at work helping to plug leaks and trash evidence. This includes many who work the internet to "clean up" mistakes like video and information about Flight 93 landing in Cleveland, statements by government employees that were not authorized and other details that could potentially implicate the perpetrators.

When you ask about substantiating claims about things that happened in the last 40 years concerning 911 your are requesting proof that in most cases has been carefully erased, destroyed, hidden or otherwise gotten rid of.

It was carefully planned scam on the United States of America by persons within the government and there is going to be no evidence available to the public to prove that. None.

So while your question "Does the author have any sources substantiating his claims...." is certainly valid it is also naive in the extreme. But it also reflects the bulk of your posts on ATS.

Thanks anyway.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Boone 870

Those links are not meant to detail Donald Rumsfeld's involvement, in actitivies the vast majority of US citizens have no idea he was/is involved, or the true nature of his character. All of his associates and associations have to be researched to determine the full character of Donald Rumsfeld. If people make the effort, there is validated information. That effort can be rewarded simiply by by putting in these two words "Donald Rumsfeld".

It is unfair for people to keep asking questions of those, who have put forth a great deal of time and effort researching, while the inquisitors never appear to put forth time and effort of their own to answer their own questions first.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:23 PM
As posted before I have had to walk a jet crash scene and search for body

The body is fragmented in what can be classified as "human hamburger". At
the site I was at only pieces identifiable were part of a torso, hand minus fingers
and several fingers. Rest was meat scraps we marked for the coroner using
little flags on sticks. The investigators will photograph the body parts before
removing they for analysis and identification. Some of you asked how can
identify someone from pieces of flesh - easy, same way CSI does it. For DNA match need reference sample - either from victim, which can be
anything from hair left on comb, cells on toothbrush or even saliva from
envelope. Or a sample from close family member can be used.

From the remains were able to match those with crew/passenger manifests
and identify all the passengers/crew.

Only people not identified were 4 samples which were concluded were the
hijackers (don't think family in hurry to provide test samples!)

As far as fuel fires - high speed impact causes fuel to be atomized and
dispersed as aerosol or droplets which burn quickly. Also most fuel
would not be found in crater, but in direction of travel as momentum would
cause it to disperse in that direction.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:36 PM
The following is a link to more than few airline crash results. I warn they are deeply disturbing to view. However, they do prove the valid point several people have made. The photos, at the link, soundly refute those making rationalizing arguments related to an alleged Flight 93, while desperately attempting to make the "official" report work.

The pictures on the site are prime examples of what I would expect to see when aircraft crashes take place.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:49 PM
The information in the citation below was announced by every TV station in Cleveland, Ohio, complete with video tape of the plane set far away from the terminal, on a distant stretch of runway. NASA sits directly across Route 480 from Cleveland Hopkins. Plus, the same citation information was also reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

It was after the following citation was reported, by all local media, a spokesperson for the US bureaucracy denied it was Flight 93. Then the spin from the media became it was not Flight 93, which instead made a hairpin turn over Cleveland and headed southeast . I can see some members of some media outlets being wrong. But all of them? That would mean 5 TV station and Plain Dealer reporters on site all got it wrong, when filming and reporting Flight 93 was ordered to land by the FAA Cleveland center in Oberlin, Ohio .

"UAL Flight 93 Landed Safely
At Cleveland Hopkins Airport
Plane Lands In Cleveland - Bomb Feared Aboard

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said."

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by westie

I don't understand the reasoning behind that it is only a conspiracy if there wasn't a plane.
It can be just as much as a conspiracy with a plane.
it would seem to much work to pretend to be plane, and make it look like a plane crash, to have not really been a plane.
Does't make sense to me.
It would be far easier to have a plane crash. Now the type of plane is debatable. How the plane went down is debatable.

And flight 93 had plenty of time to be brought down by our own military. Hence the debris was scattered, instead of being confined to an area conducive to a crash.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:03 PM

The following is a link to more than few airline crash results. I warn they are deeply disturbing to view. However, they do prove the valid point several people have made. The photos, at the link, soundly refute those making rationalizing arguments related to an alleged Flight 93, while desperately attempting to make the "official" report work.

Did you bother to read the captions? The planes featured here crashed on
takeoff or landings - hence "LOW AND SLOW" not in 580 mph nose
down dive! You are dishonest (or course I would not expect the "truth"
from a "truther"

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by thedman

That is assuming any plane was going 580 mph on a nosedive. Exactly what altitude were they at when starting to nosedive? Yes, it does make a difference as to velocity increasing nosediving downward. It has nothing to do with manually accelerating the plane. It has everything to do with laws of physics mass, weight, and gravity at work.

This one was 7 miles from the approach:

"Air Philipines Flight 541, a Boeing 737-200, crashed shortly before landing into a coconut grove, after a flight from the country`s capital Manilla, to Davao. The plane was carrying 124 passengers and 7 crew, there were no survivors. The last contact made with the aircraft was around 7.00 am when the aircraft was 7 miles out on approach to Davao."

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by IvanZana
This topic was to prove and i might add successfully that NO PLANE CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

NO PLANE crashed in Shanksville.

Its not debatable if a plane crashed. what should be debated is.. Did they fake the plane crash to remove a false radar blip that was being followed by legit people?

[edit on 24-12-2007 by IvanZana]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:45 PM
Originally posted by nixie_nox

And flight 93 had plenty of time to be brought down by our own military. Hence the debris was scattered, instead of being confined to an area conducive to a crash.

Thanks for the post nixie-nox. I am curently going through the NTSB supplied Flight Data Recorder information.

At first glance I see no indication that Flight 93 was shot down. Both engines were running and the airspeed was 487.5 knots at the time of impact.

So if somebody was trying to shoot Flight 93 down they were not using air to air missiles which would have hit the engines. And if they were using machine guns, (for instance a 20 mm cannon that an F-16 uses) then they were not hitting what they were aiming at. There is no indication in the data that any strategic parts, or any parts for that matter were being hit my 20 mm cannon fire.

If scattered debris was found then it was not from Flight 93 according to the Flight Data Recorder.

I do see things that are impossible to resolve on the Flight Data Recorder information from Flight 93. For instance N1 for the engines is 58 and 52 which is barely above idle. No Boeing 757 could possibly have been going 487 knots with the engines at idle even going straight down a mine shaft.

Vmo, the maximum authorized airspeed at sea level (not necessarily the maximum attainable airspeed) is 340 knots. If Flight 93 was going 487.5 knots that means it was going 127.5 knots over its limited airspeed.

That is just plain nuts. I doubt vary seriously if the airplane could attain that speed and if it could whether it could be controlled or not.

So the bottom line is the information was obviously tampered with in the FDR of Flight 93 and I expect to find more indications in the information itself that there was no Flight 93.

But thanks for the post.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:50 PM

Then could you provide evidence of the cockpit and first class section located in PA? I have seen no evidence of a cockpt and first class section. How does anyone find human remains in something has not been proved to be there?

Lets see....plane slams into ground at 500+ knots, the data recorder, which is located in the tail, was found 25-30 feet underground....just where do you think the cockpit ended up? Here is a hint....deeper in the ground than that.......

How did they handle that evidence? Did they use gloves to prevent contamination of evidence?

I understand that you already think everyone involved in the investigation is incompentent.

Did they wrap every piece to avoid contamination of evidence before they placed it in a roll away dumpster?

Really no need to wrap scraps of metal.

That is beside the point. As I said, the Bush administration is highly suspect.

Only because people like you are completely unable to accept the facts.

I do trust you will not insult my intelligence by saying federal agencies and departments are not controlled by the presidential office of the US bureaucracy.

You want it both ways, and in this instance you cannot. Either all federal employees are mindless zombies that do exactly what they are told to or we are not.

I have relatives who worked for the federal government. If they were told it was a matter of national security, and not to tell the truth, they did what they were told or lost their jobs, plus, faced being discredited on their employement records.

On the contrary, if we are given illegal orders, we are duty bound to NOT carry them out.

As I recall, the one name on Flight 93 I remember, above any other, is Mark Bingham. The alleged gentleman who was supposed to have cell phone called his mother and said, "Hello, this is your son, Mark Bingham." I know no one who indentifies him or herself to a parent by first and last name, and found that extremely odd at the time.

Thats funny, his mom didnt find it in the least bit odd.....because thats how he always started his phone calls.

Let me respectfully suggest that you do not understand the big picture here.

Let me respectfully suggest you get a new pair of glasses. Not to mention adjust your attitude, you are far from the most intelligent person on ATS.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by johnlear

But John you conclude that the FRD for flight 93 was obviously faked, so you cannot immediately turn around and use that faked data to negate NN's quite reasonable post.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:59 PM
"UAL Flight 93 Landed Safely
At Cleveland Hopkins Airport
Plane Lands In Cleveland - Bomb Feared Aboard

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

Thank you for posting Ms. Foreman's name. NOW as Paul Harvey says, lets look at the rest of the story.....

I thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand. I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001. The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true. Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.

There were two problems:

1)I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they’d ever been.

2) The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the “Reported by: 9News Staff” byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story

Sometime in 2003 I received an e-mail inquiring about the story. I quickly removed the story, and wrote back to the person, thanking them for the heads up about the incorrect story. Things didn't stop there. Messages and phone calls started coming in about "Why did the government make me remove the story?" As is the nature of the net, folks had gotten a hold of the old story and posted it on their own blogs, fueling even more interest in the situation. So, for everyone who is still wondering about this story, here are some frequently asked questions. I'm hoping this clears everything up once and for all!

1. Where did the original story come from?

The story was an Associated Press bulletin that came across the news wires. Associated Press is a news service that many news organizations subscribe to for non-local news. The idea is that a local news organization can’t possibly have reporters everywhere in the world, so for that reason, we publish stories written by Associated Press journalists.

2. So you didn’t report the story yourself?

No, I work at the website in Cincinnati. I generally do not do any reporting out in the field. Also, I was not in Cleveland, nor does WCPO-TV have a Cleveland-based reporter. If you’re not familiar with the geography of Ohio, Cleveland is a good four hours away from us.

3. Why didn’t you remove the problem story page from the outset?

My mistake, that’s why. I removed the link TO the story, but didn’t remove the actual story. Then, the story page was indexed by the major search engines. I didn’t even know the story hadn’t been removed until after I was contacted by a member of the public

4. Why DID you remove the page?

Because it was in error.

As posted by Liz Foreman on WCPO's website, February 2006.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:10 PM
I am going to present a list of serious problems I have with alleged Flight 93.

1. It was ordered landed in Cleveland as all other planes were stated ordered to land on 9/11, and reported by 5 local TV stations and the newspaper to have complied.

2. It did not land in Cleveland, Ohio, but did an expert pilot maneuver hairpin turn southeast instead.

3. After not landing as originally reported ordered to do and did, Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, or any other AFB that I recall, took no reported steps, at any point, to do any interception of said disobedient pilot between Cleveland and PA.

4. Since the target has been stated to be DC somewhere, what was a plane doing flying all the way to Cleveland, Ohio, only to be reported to double back headed in the direction of DC?

4. Reported crash landing in PA, so close to Dayton, Ohio, which left no plane parts, bodies, or luggage, from an alleged plane reported landed in Cleveland and reported not to have landed in Cleveland.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Here is more of the story. I was living in Cleveland on 9/11/2001. I know exactly what was reported and saw the plane on runway on news reports.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:27 PM
And you would be the ONLY person in the Cleveland area who saw United 93 sitting on a runway then.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Only if I was the only person watching any or all of 5 TV stations, all showing the same footage of alleged Flight 93 on a distant runway, and reading the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Oh, that's right. Some people may believe that people in Cleveland, Ohio, never talk to one another and discuss what they viewed, regarding 9/11. Is that it?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:47 PM
This topic is beyond frustrating for me. Are you people blind? How on earth can you honestly believe that a plane went down in shanksville? There is no evidence supporting that there actually was a plane crash. Where is your evidence supporting that claim??? You cant just come on here and rattle off a bunch of explanations with out backing them up.

The other side to my argument is look at the evidence that WE, the people who know there was no plane crash and that this is a gross conspiarcy by a group of people within our own government to push there own agenda to start war in the middle east.... Look at what we have posted. In every case that you have told us blindly that there was a crash in shankseville many of us have given you the proof that there was not. And yet you still dont believe the truths that are right in fron of your eyes.

One engine was recovered and a small scrap bin full of small peices of wreckage that were planted at the scene. I'm sorry folks 747 jet motors wheigh in the area of about 3 tons... they dont dissapear. Other plane wreckage and fires from jet fuel... You honestly believe that two wings full of jet fuel just vaporize and dont burn at all??? Dont think so

I hate to be morbid but there would be bodies too. Even if the plane was only half loaded there would be pieces of human remains scattered about too.

The fact that there would be a crash that happened down a mine shaft should be a blinking red light, I don't know the mathematics but the odds of a 747 jet crashing into a mine opening are probably about the same as a person getting struck by lightning, surviving, and then getting attacked by a great white in the same day.

No debris, no fire, no bodies, shady flight recorder info, NO PLANE CRASH.

Edit to add-- those pics are what real plane crashes look like, as i and many others have posted before.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by W3RLIED2]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:55 PM
I'm not done reading the thread yet (only on page 8 at the moment), but i've noticed a couple of things that i'd like to comment on.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Let me know where and how you are going to post that video. Unless...its been.....lost?

Lost? nope, sitting in my entertainment center with the rest of my for posting it..not going to happen. You can do your own research and find the news footage for yourself.

As many times as you have called my integrity into question Mr. Lear, I will do no favors for you.

If you claim you have this video, and you claim it contradicts what another participant in this thread has put forth, and you wish to use said video as evidence that that other participant is wrong in what they've put forth, then you need to actually produce said video, before you can use it as admissible evidence. You can't go to a murder trial as the prosecutor, say you have the murder knife, but then turn around and say "oh, i'm sorry your honor, i have it back at my house, but i'm not going to bring it here".

Bottom line is this: If you have the video evidence, produce it....otherwise, you concede the point.

Originally posted by Boone 870

I never called it a retraction. It's a correction. You and jackinthebox asked for their retraction, I posted the link of the correction.

Sorry if you misunderstood.

Actually, no, it's YOU who misunderstood.....swampfox (again with this guy..) said the story was admitted by the bbc to be wrong, a link to the retraction was requested of him, and instead you post a link to a minor correction. That's like me asking you for a banana, and you hand me a bloody ham sandwich. They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, not even remotely alike. What you should have done was simply said "Here's a post to a correction regarding a story, as i can't post a link to a retraction, because one doesn't exist."

I'm sure i'm going to find more here...i'll post it up later, i suppose...if i can finish reading through all this crap.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Daedalus]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Daedalus]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Daedalus]

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in