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 Shootdown - Once kooky theory - now confirmed (again and again)

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
April 16, 2008 -- Flight 93 shot down by Air Force jets

[Poster's comment: The WMR reference if from WAYNE MADSEN REPORT, a website which I have come to learn is 'subscription-based'; as a result I have apparently propagated information from a URL that requires a paid membership to access. Also, I'm sure those inclined to argue for the sanctity of profit over truth might be correct in stating that this information is 'owned' and therefore subject to the usual restrictions of 'fair use'. I APOLOGIZE and attest that I in no way wish to complicate the lives of the kind folks at ATS who have no complicity in my posting it here. - If it must be 'removed' so be it - I will certainly take no offense]


"WMR has received another confirmation, bringing the total number to three, that United Flight 93, hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, was shot down over rural Pennsylvania by U.S. Air Force jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.

The third confirmation, as were the first two, is from a National Security Agency (NSA) source. In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA's National Security Operations Center (NSOC), were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.

The 9/11 Commission, which is now known to have been influenced by Bush adviser Karl Rove and its Executive Director Phil Zelikow, never interviewed the on-duty signals intelligence personnel who were aware that United 93 was brought down by Air Force jets. The cover-story is that passengers on board the plane struggled with hijackers and flew the plane directly into the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Investigators have stressed that the 8-mile debris field left by the doomed aircraft proves the government's story is a hoax. "

This is my first thread. Please forgive me if any technical issues are apparent.

Maybe this is old news. Maybe this is 'well-known'. On the other hand after three (countem' - three) confirmation from my old alma mater NSA - the story of the flight 93 shoot down is no longer 'debatable.

My interest in starting this thread is towards a discussion of five things:

1) How fervently those who argued 'against' the theory seem to be utterly mute on the matter now. Their provided 'proof' and of course their undying loyalty to the 'official position'.

2) How the government 'cooperated' with the media to produce and promote the heartrending "Flight 93" docudrama that served to cement public opinion against the truth and truth-seekers as lunatics with possible 'unpatriotic' motivations.

3) How the 'independent' media exemplified its 'journalistic integrity' while generating tens of millions (around the world no less) in revenue while propagating information that even untrained eyes recognized as patently false.

4) Why the American people are intended to 'let it go' despite the disrespect it shows to those who died. And the 'circumstantial' evidence it lends to the 'looney' theory that we have been, and continue to be misdirected and blatantly lied to by the government.

5) Which public officials stepped forward to propagate and strengthen this pack of lies. Which actually 'created the lies' and which just surrendered to them.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Maxmars]




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Thanks for the well-written post, but could you post a link to the source material--this "WMR"?

If you don't know how to embed a link yet, just copy and paste the url into your reply text.

Many thanks!



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Thanks for the well-written post, but could you post a link to the source material--this "WMR"?

If you don't know how to embed a link yet, just copy and paste the url into your reply text.

Many thanks!


Ooops! Thanks. I will fix it.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I personally think you can add a FOURTH confirmation from none less than D. Rumsfield. He said on two seperate occasions (search you-tube for the video clips) "the plane we shot-down in Pennsylvania"! Nobody in the room even stopped him at that point to question that "Fruedian" slip? People are so lame, I would have raised hell at that point!



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by percievedreality
People are so lame, I would have raised hell at that point!


Doubtful, because as one of those reporters you wouldn't want to lose your cush job parroting lies and the endless supply of kneepads and lip balm.

Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 


Here it is:

www.youtube.com...

Actually watch the two people behind him. There was a reaction. Just not from the MSM. Wonder why?

Edit: I think Dr. Love answered my question above.


[edit on 4/16/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
This is only part of 9/11 that I believe the Government covered up. Only due to my experience on 9/11.

I was in lower mahatten (25 broadway) on 9/11. during the ensuing confusion (evacuation and such) one of my employees received a phone call from his brother who just happened to work in MI. On that morning, prior to being evacuated, my employee told me his brother told him flight 93 was shot down.

It is just too much of a coincidence.

The Government shot the plane down because it was a serious potential threat to Washington DC and the White House especially after the events at the Twin Towers.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
This is only part of 9/11 that I believe the Government covered up. Only due to my experience on 9/11.

I was in lower mahatten (25 broadway) on 9/11. during the ensuing confusion (evacuation and such) one of my employees received a phone call from his brother who just happened to work in MI. On that morning, prior to being evacuated, my employee told me his brother told him flight 93 was shot down.

It is just too much of a coincidence.

The Government shot the plane down because it was a serious potential threat to Washington DC and the White House especially after the events at the Twin Towers.


You are not alone, there was much eye-witness evidence suppressed. Many calls went to various media and 'local and governmental' authorities, most were told 'thanks but no thanks.' when attempting to do their patriotic duty and report what they actually saw or heard. Unfortunately, these folks were marginalized, and in some cases vilified by popular media and public officials alike.

There is NO press in this country. We need a free press. Without it our democracy is hamstrung - the press was as fundamental to our freedom in the 1700's as it is crucial to our freedom today.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
This is only part of 9/11 that I believe the Government covered up.


You damn nutty "twoofer" you.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


FYI, at least one of the "Fruedian slips" happened not in front of a room full of reporters (ie @ a press conference) but in an Elks Lodge gathering of local people that were there to see Rumsfield speak. I was thinking more along the lines of a civilian standing up to question that statement, not a press-corps person fearful of retribution! Total different scenario..............



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The Government shot the plane down because it was a serious potential threat to Washington DC and the White House especially after the events at the Twin Towers.


Let's not forget that Flight 93 was seriously delayed before take off, like at least an hour. It was shot down because it wouldn't have been plausible to the public that yet another plane was seemingly allowed over the time span of an hour to fly unhindered to a forth target that day, the Congress building.... especially after the three other "planes" had already completed their mission and impacted their targets. The government/military response to the other dangers was already being seen as complacient by many, at least they knew when to "alter" the course rather the "stay the course" right?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 


In that case you'd end up like that kid at the John Kerry speech saying "don't taze me bro'!".


Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Covering up a shot down airliner involves so many people, it would be found out faster than Watergate. Watergate was a real conspiracy. Since all the evidence about a shoot down is bogus, there will be no Pulitzer Prize now or ever unless it is in fiction.

Some silly facts making the shoot down impossible; no planes were there to shoot down 93; the FDR does not show any anomalies; the plane crashed with all it's parts at 600 mph and was found in PA in the ground and ejected during impact, scattered for hundreds of yards; etc

The fighters would be on the ATC tapes, locking up, shooting and getting permission since 93 was over nothing of interest and was not a threat, save a few chicken farms.

On 9/11 and after, the news agencies were in a hurry to get the story, they report the errors. People who said 93 was shot down on 9/11, had not gotten reports from pilots, they never entered PA, and the rumors of the shoot down and now CT on the shoot down, depends on people lacking knowledge.

The reports of 93 being shot down were due to lack of knowledge as is believe in CT on the topic now.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


The shootdown theory is used to cover up the fact that No BOEING 757 Crashed in Shanksville on 911.

It is a classic straw man theory started by the perps to confuse, obsefucate, derail, mislead, and all and all make the conspiracies unbelievable in hopes that new users will get frustrated with the so many CT's out there that they will give up seeking the truth.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I tend to agree with Ivan about flight 93. When I saw pictures of the alleged crash site from a distance I saw nothing. After that of course I'm presented with close-up pictures of plane parts that could have been taken back in '78 in El Salvador for all I know.

Peace



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
scattered for hundreds of yards


"people lacking knowledge", huh?

Yeah, try debris scattered for over 8 MILES. There were fighter planes in the area, eyewitness accounts have told us so. It was shot down regardless of whatever you may think, all those "silly facts making the shoot down impossible", are indeed "silly MADE-UP facts" so that they can conceal the truth and convince you and a large part of the public that what they told you was fact. The truth being that the delayed Flight 93 was too far behind schedule for its' part of the plan that day. Regardless, they still had to kill the mission and sadly the innocents aboard. But they felt justified with the fictional TV movie of how all the passengers were "heros" who had saved us that day from the terrorists...... Sick and twisted, smoke and mirrors, lies and deception!



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Let's see ...

scramble jets during hijaack scenario - 3 maybe 4 people (controller, pilot(s), flight-line officer - if at all)

Confirm shoot down order - 4 people - commander, comms officer, pilots, air traffic controller.

----

But wait! the jets had already been scrambled during a 'similar scenario' exercise coincidentally taking place a the same time - in the same air space.. subtract 2 people from each.

NO, it is not 'a lot of people' COMSEC and security channels ensure that only a very few people are tactically involved in any such operation. This isn't a football game - it's real life . You don't get 50 people on the sidelines mulling around like in Hollywood - tactical operations must be as close to instantaneous real-time as possible - more people means more opportunity for delay and or failure.

This is not to say that there shouldn't have been quite a number of detached lookers on - ego's must be fed and many officers want to be able to claim "I was in the 'war room' and "I was there" etc. That doesn't mean they did squat other than stand around drinking coffee. (I've been there - I've seen that)

Now while I definitely differ with you on how command and control is carried out in a tactical situation, your other points merit review. Perhaps you are right. Maybe there was no shoot down and all of this is just someones idea of a funny joke.

I can only tell you that after over a decade with NSA I am inclined to believe them. The reason you hear so little from them is because of the structure of the organization and the nature of its 'product' - they would rather say nothing than propagate 'bad' info - bedsides, that's what the FBI and CIA are for.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I live like 3 miles away from Langley and have multiple friends that work there.

I while ago I tole one of them with Secret Clearance that I knew about the plane being shot down over Pennsylvania.
He agreed that he knew but was hesitant to discuss the matter any further.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


1) How fervently those who argued 'against' the theory seem to be utterly mute on the matter now. Their provided 'proof' and of course their undying loyalty to the 'official position'.
Maybe the reason that those who have undying loyalty to the official position remain mute, is because the truth movement never brings anything viable to the argument. It's always the same old anonymous so and so from such and such organization making sensational claims with nothing to back it up. Like you have just done.


2) How the government 'cooperated' with the media to produce and promote the heartrending "Flight 93" docudrama that served to cement public opinion against the truth and truth-seekers as lunatics with possible 'unpatriotic' motivations.
Oh great, more of the government controls the media nonsense. What about the family members who helped on the Flight 93 docudrama? Are they controlled by the government also?


3) How the 'independent' media exemplified its 'journalistic integrity' while generating tens of millions (around the world no less) in revenue while propagating information that even untrained eyes recognized as patently false.
How can an untrained eye recognize something that is false when they are untrained to recognize what is true?


4) Why the American people are intended to 'let it go' despite the disrespect it shows to those who died. And the 'circumstantial' evidence it lends to the 'looney' theory that we have been, and continue to be misdirected and blatantly lied to by the government.
The FDR and CVR found at the crash site are as about as rocksolid as you can get.


5) Which public officials stepped forward to propagate and strengthen this pack of lies. Which actually 'created the lies' and which just surrendered to them.
What about the family members? Are they propagating and strengthening lies? Or were they controlled by the government also?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I personally have been saying since the day it happened that it was shot down. I remember watching the news reports with my wife who also remembers the same thing, and one of the reports that was given said that part of the tail section was found in a lake several miles away from the main site. I'm sorry but I can't buy that it would happen if a plane just crashed into the ground. We never heard that report again or anything like it on any channel after that.

I have not followed all the arguments to the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and have no real opinion at this point one way or the other. However I do believe this plane was shot down. Too many things, like Rumsfield's slip point to it. It is possible that we shot it down just to prevent it from achieving it's final mission, and that's what I'd like to think.

Also to the poster who mentioned are the families in on any cover-up, I don't think the families are aware of the truth...but certainly we'd all like to remember our loved ones as heroes instead of victims. If that is the story they are hearing it probably gives them more comfort than to hear that some jets shot them down and they were helpless to stop it.

I think most anyone knows the media is censored to some degree at all times, and to a great degree when it deals with National Security issues. To believe everything we get fed by the newspapers, TV and radio journalists is 100% accurate is very gullible, indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join