FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

swampfox has an agenda.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And there are photos, hopefully they will stay under lock and key.

Right... just like the photos of Flight 77 that are under lock and key and shall forever remain that way. Concealing the truth...

Boone870
Ten months prior to 9/11 would have been December 11, 2000. Rumsfeld was not sworn in until January 20, 2001. So much for Rumsfeld holding an exercise of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

At the very least if Rumsfeld is not a liar, then he's incompetent for not knowing what happened a month prior to being sworn in. People don't generally start new jobs with a clean slate and no debriefing. That's a lame excuse for not knowing. No 'plausable deniability' there for Donald to fall back on.

More and more people are waking up to the fact no plane crashed in shanksville.
This picture proves it. Notice the wings scars?No wings, no fuel, no plane.



[edit on 25-12-2007 by IvanZana]

reply to post by tezzajw

At the very least if Rumsfeld is not a liar, then he's incompetent for not knowing what happened a month prior to being sworn in. People don't generally start new jobs with a clean slate and no debriefing. That's a lame excuse for not knowing. No 'plausable deniability' there for Donald to fall back on.

Did Rumsfeld ever deny that there was an aircraft accident exercise?

Originally posted by IvanZana

More and more people are waking up to the fact no plane crashed in shanksville.
This picture proves it. Notice the wings scars?No wings, no fuel, no plane.

What about the passengers?

What about the passengers?

People who argue the No Plane theory like to bring up
the question, "What about the passengers?" Yes, about
20 % show up in Social Security Death Index as having
died on 9/11/01 and WCPO reports a United flight 93
as landing at Cleveland-Hopkins Airport.

ssdi.rootsweb.com... (80% do not show up)

(So instead of 266 deaths to deal with you now only
have fifty to sixty.)

web.archive.org...://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

postmanpatel.blogspot.com...

[edit on 25-12-2007 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


You keep posting that picture but offer no alternative explanation for what made it. If it were a missile the wreckage would be more obviously a missile. Also there are no obvious disturbance of the surrounding grass etc, so while it makes it look dubious for a plane, where's the damage from the missile?

And when things decelerate from 500 mph, they can tend to bury themselves in the ground a bit, there is enough force.

I show the pic because it proves beyond a resonable doubt no plance crash in that photo.


What about the passengers?

What about the passengers?

People who argue the No Plane theory like to bring up
the question, "What about the passengers?" Yes, about
20 % show up in Social Security Death Index as having
died on 9/11/01 and WCPO reports a United flight 93
as landing at Cleveland-Hopkins Airport.

ssdi.rootsweb.com... (80% do not show up)

(So instead of 266 deaths to deal with you now only
have fifty to sixty.)

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 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.

web.archive.org...://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

Originally posted by IvanZana
I show the pic because it proves beyond a resonable doubt no plance crash in that photo.

How do you even know that was taken at Shanksville? If there is this grand conspiracy, is it not possible that that photo is disinformation as well?

swampfox has an agenda.

Yes you are right, I absolutely do have an agenda. Its called getting people to pull their heads out of their alimentary canals and reading something other than goofy conspiracy websites.

People on this thread have alleged:

1. There was no wreckage

I posted links that show pictures of the wreckage

2. There were no bodies

I posted links that talked about the human remains that were found

3. There was no fire

I posted links to eyewitness accounts that spoke of the fires they did see

4. That Flight 93 landed in Cleveland as listed by WCPO TV

I posted links that showed that the whole "Flight 93 landed in Cleveland" was the result of a foul up by the AP. And that the real "mystery" plane in Cleveland that day was a NASA KC-135.

When you stay out of the goofy conspiracy sites, it is not hard to find the truth.

We have:

United employees who closed out Flight 93 that day, they witnessed all the people who boarded the plane and left the gate.

United employees who called from Flight 93 to report a hijack, giving names and seat assignments of the hijackers.

Radar tracks of Flight 93 from take off to crash

Other phone calls (both cell and airphone) from people on board the plane telling their families and others what was going on.

Airborne and ground witnesses to Flight 93's final moments, including one gentleman who was less than a mile from the crash site and watched it auger in.

First responders who speak of wreckage and human remains.

Investigators who identified those remains as belonging to the people known to have been on board Flight 93.

Data recorders (serially tracked as belonging to that jet) which show not only was Flight 93 intact and in a near nose dive, but also gave us the voices of the hijackers and the sounds of the passengers trying to break into the cockpit.

On the other side, we have a bunch of people like Dom DePre (or whatever his name was) Alex Jones, Rense, et al, who frankly, really do not have the first clue as to what they are talking about, running around saying that no plane crashed there, the Air Force shot it down, blah blah blah......which the evidence directly contradicts......oh wait, we are not supposed to believe the evidence because it came from the government and as we all know, government employees are mindless robots that do whatever they are told to do. Give me a break

United Flight 93 was hijacked, and crashed outside Shanksville, PA on Sept. 11, 2001....as the evidence shows.

"I'm no scientist." Well, no 'S N I P' Sherlock.

So, the gov't faked the 9/11 crash site in some rural local in PA, but actually managed to fly an airliner into the Twin Towers (only admitted because it was caught on open source media tape)?

Yeah, 'S N I P' lot of sense that makes...



BTW, I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm wondering if there are still derogatory label removed claiming that there was no way that the passengers could have made calls from the airliner? Because, I know that was a big part of the "MIHOP" "truth" movement theory for a long time. And the two "Loose Change" dopes were screaming this in the "first edition" until they were owned and finally figured out that:

A.) they have these contraptions called "air phones" you can call people from airliners from

B.) Cell phones do in fact work aboard continental flights...

The accusation has since been edited out of the "Loose Change" redo edition I hear. A little fact that a lot of people holding onto these conspiracy theories like to forget...

[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



Moderator Note -- Please Read!
I would like to point out that under the ATS Terms & Conditions, we do not tolerate inappropriate language and efforts to circumvent our language censors. You obviously are able to express yourself well enough without resorting to expletives.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that ATS we expect all members to conduct themselves in a courteous manner. We demand that members treat one another with Courtesy and Decorum. We do not attack or call fellow ATS members names.

Please read the links provided and conduct yourself accordingly.

benevolent tyrant
Forum Moderator




[edit on 12/25/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

And as far of the "evidence" that a jet didn't crash, well, where were the "truth movement" people when "Valujet" FL592 crashed in Florida in 1995?

en.wikipedia.org...

Look mom, no plane wreckage or whole bodies:



From Wiki

The Crash

The plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near Shanksville. Initial media reports and eyewitness accounts cited the time of the crash at 10:06 a.m. [22][23][24][25] Subsequent media reports[26][27][28] reported the time of impact as 10:03 a.m., as did 9/11 Commission Report based on when the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder stopped, along with analysis of radar data, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions.[29]

Karl Landis, who was driving nearby, saw the plane as it "rolled slightly to the left and appeared to hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle."[30] Another witness, Eric Peterson, who was at a nearby auto shop, looked up when he heard the plane, "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."[31]

The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a 40 degree angle.[32] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35 m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were killed by the impact or had been previously killed during flight).

The only known photograph of the smoke plume from the crash was taken by real estate agent Val McClatchey. Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph. [33][34][35]

While sifting through the wreckage, investigators reported finding a serrated belt-clip knife,[36] as well as a cigarette lighter with a concealed blade.[37]

I guess the witnesses are all lying, huh?

[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

Flight 93 was shot down. That is the mistake that is bieng made here and it is pure disinfo to keep the story of the
no plane' It was show down. There are 5 people who know the truth.

Cheney, Mineta, Mystery Navy guy, pilot and Tower operator. That is it. Maybe a few more in the tower or maybe the pilot from the second F-16. Look into the standdown timeline.

The lets roll story was created to coverup the fact that it was shot down. We made heroes out of martyrs and the 9/11 truth movement was created to further remove the US from responsibility of shoooting them down and killing all aboard to save thousands of others by makng a conspiracy out of the WTC. They were in fact heroes in a sense.

Please take a look at this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 25-12-2007 by esdad71]

reply to post by Nickdfresh


The cell phone call myth arose with the 9/11 Commission report, not with people questioning that report or the "official" version. Those questioning cell phone use did so, because of what the media reported surrounding both the "official" and 9/11 Commission reports. Alleged Flight 93 appeared to have more people making calls at the same time than air phones available for making calls. Then the story became the excess were using their cell phones instead.

globalresearch.ca...

"The Technology of Wireless Transmission

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground ( www.elliott.org... "

The possibility that FL93 was shot down is there. I've heard this from people who've talked to people in the FBI yada yada yada...Yet evidence is lacking. If the doomed flight was hit, which squadron managed it? there is talk in the "9/11 Report" of an F-15 wing specifically earmarked to defend DC out of Andrews AFB was a wild card kept secret, one with liaison to the US Secret Service. But if the airliner was hit by an air to air missile, I think it would have broken up like the Lockerbie, Pan Am 103 flight did as opposed to crashing largely intact into a crater...

The thing is that Bush was out of town reading "My Pet Goat" and we don't know of any unit reacting fast enough with the confusion of that day. People who knew they were doomed to die are very likely to have overrun the hijackers. I sure as hell would have!

So I must respectfully disagree...





[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nickdfresh

 

The cell phone call myth arose with the 9/11 Commission report, not with people questioning that report or the "official" version.

No. They chose to select what they saw as an inconsistency as a key pillar of evidence to build the myth...

Those questioning cell phone use did so, because of what the media reported surrounding both the "official" and 9/11 Commission reports. Alleged Flight 93 appeared to have more people making calls at the same time than air phones available for making calls. Then the story became the excess were using their cell phones instead.

globalresearch.ca...

"The Technology of Wireless Transmission

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground ( www.elliott.org... "

But who said the whole thing was faked because cell phone calls were impossible? Who continues to insult and even assail victim families and witnesses?

And isn't it a bit dubious that those that have convinced themselves that 9/11 was an "inside job" used this part of the myth as a pillar of evidence? But once the myth is "busted," they simply bait and switch (without the least bit of skeptical introspection that their worldview might be a bit screwed up) to another so called inconsistency to prove their point and advance their agenda?


[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

reply to post by Nickdfresh


Did the witnesses happen to mention who or what hauled off all the evidence, of a plane crash, they swear they saw before anyone else could see it, including news crews on the scene within a very short period of time? The news crews reported there was nothing there resembling any plane crash. They went to the site officially reported to be the crash site.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nickdfresh

 

Did the witnesses happen to mention who or what hauled off all the evidence, of a plane crash, they swear they saw before anyone else could see it, including news crews on the scene within a very short period of time? The news crews reported there was nothing there resembling any plane crash. They went to the site officially reported to be the crash site.

Really? Which news crews said this?

And why do the Shanksville, PA news crews get carp blanch while NYC "news crews" get dissected for their coverage of the WTC?

BTW, have you ever seen a plane crash?

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

reply to post by Nickdfresh

 

No. They chose to select what they saw as an inconsistency as a key pillar of evidence to build the myth...

Of course, people in doubt are going to question inconsistancies put out by those in charge. More people should be questioning everything they were told, regarding 9/11/2001, by US bureaucrats. Rather than buying at face value the "official", 9/11 Commission, and NIST reports, which are full of inconsistancies far more pertinent than the cell phone myth.

I do not know about the cell myth being a "key pillar of evidence." However, it is certainly more evidence people have been lied to by US bureaucrats, regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

reply to post by Nickdfresh


The news crews were from major network affiliates flown in by the affiliate networks' helicopters.



[edit on 25-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

reply to post by Nickdfresh

 

No. They chose to select what they saw as an inconsistency as a key pillar of evidence to build the myth...

Of course, people in doubt are going to question inconsistancies put out by those in charge. More people should be questioning everything they were told, regarding 9/11/2001, by US bureaucrats. Rather than buying at face value the "official", 9/11 Commission, and NIST reports, which are full of inconsistancies far more pertinent than the cell phone myth.

I do not know about the cell myth being a "key pillar of evidence." However, it is certainly more evidence people have been lied to by US bureaucrats, regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

So what is the truth of 9/11?

That the Bush Admin (which I despise incidentally) orchestrated attacks on the US involving 1000s of personnel and intricate planning? And nobody had talked? The media which has exposed illegal spying, a good deal of GOP congressional corruption, and any basic scandal you can mention has somehow missed the largest mass murder in modern history?

Really? Bush/Cheney is even competent enough to pull this off?

You guys give them far too much credit. Not too mention a great cover that distracts attention from the real questions of 9/11...