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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Good Morning all...Let me qualify myself before I get started...I just spent 22 years in the USAF...flew for 17 of them...I am a Commercially rated pilot and Flight Instructor with over 6,000 hours of flight time...and also a trained accident investigator. As a little side note, I was also controlling the KC-10 air to air refuelers on that fateful day. While a shoot down is Possible, it is VERY unlikely...and here's why. There were 4 tankers airborne that day...2 in Northern NY and 2 off of the coast about 30 miles south of Manhattan. We were the only game in town that day close to everything. These were routine training missions with no scheduled recievers except themselves. (KC-10's are AC/DC...they can give and recieve fuel). While it IS true that a 2 ship of F-16's did depart Langley to provide CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over DC, they DO NOT have the legs to get to where Shanksville, PA is WITHOUT refueling first. (As a sidenote again, when in Burner for T/O, the F-16 burns about 54,000 LBS of fuel per hour...even with externals, fuel capacity is only about 16K...Unsure if the Vipers out of Langley had saddle bags or not...but internal fuel is only about 9K...WIth that said, F-15's out of Otis in Mass were scrambled (They sit routine alert for NORAD) They DID refuel with us shortly before the Shanksville crash, but there's NO WAY they could have made it from the A/R track to the "Shootdown" point in time. (Would have taken about 30 minutes at max speed, which they couldn't have done, because they would've ran out of gas before they got there...not to mention the engines would've melted by then...burner for short bursts only)...Now to the crash scene...I've seen the pictures..both online and from the FAA...An aircraft that hits the ground doing roughly 600 MPH at that steep of an angle will make a really big hole with very little debris outside of that hole...not saying that there is NO debris, but relatively small compared to the size of the aircraft. As for the tail section found some miles away...I hypothisise this...aircraft have what is called 'V' speeds (Speeds at which minimum or maximum things you can do them at..IE: Vle is Landing gear extend speed) Va is "Maneuvering Speed"... and is defined as "The speed at which sudden or full control inputs can be made without damage to the aircraft"...if during a fight for the flight controls is going on, it would be reasonable to assume that max deflection of the controls did occur. (As a matter of fact, if you watch the FDR readings, you will see that the Hijacker Pilot did indeed rack the aircraft up several times in order to try and defeat the passengers). The aircraft was put into an "Overspeed" situation in the dive (Audible overspeed on the CVR...sounds like a chicken...we call it the "Chicken Clucker") At that point, any control input could've resulted in damage to the aircraft...a full scale deflection of the flight controls would've resulted in SERIOUS or even CATISTROPHIC damage. Case in point is the US AIR crash in Queens shortly after 9-11 when the co-pilot made a max deflection of the rudder and the tail came off...every large jet (Including my cherrished KC-10) has that warning in the flight manual. These hijacker pilots were nothing more then VERY slightly trained pilots at best...keep it straight and level and move the throttles around was about all they could really do. They had NO knowledge of the Warnings, Caution and Notes for the aircraft, let alone any knowledge of advanced aerodynamics...With all that said, I would'nt have a problem with a shootdown...but the times and places of where the shooters actually were DO NOT add up.




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'll admit to not seeing the FDR tapes. Is there any chance it exceeded Vne in the dive? That would also cause stresses greater than Va and would create the same effect even without control imput.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Earlier in this thread the question was asked "What about the family members?" and that really struck a cord with me.

Again - What about the family members? Why are they not raising bloody hell and demanding formal investigations, follow-ups, hearings etc into everything that happened that day. Is anyone familiar with the restitutions they received from all of the 9/11 funds and did it contain any "hush hush" clauses?

If I lost a loved one that day I would be screaming my head off, especially knowing that the person they blamed for it is possibly still alive and breathing.

With Rummy mentioning (twice) that 93 was shot down, don't you kinda think the families would be going NUTS and ASKING QUESTIONS when no one else did?

Kinda mind-boggling sometimes...



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatchesOHoulihan
In the case of flight 93, let's say the evil conspirators really did order the shoot down of the plane over shanksville. The pilot is just following orders and knows he has done nothing wrong, but when he opens his newspaper the next day, or in the following weeks, the story he will read will be the one about the passengers fighting back. The pilot may well be compartmentalised, as may be all the ground support crew (including the weapons crew - "Hey, you fired your missiles?") but they are not unaware of the story which is being reported afterwards.


Let me ask. if you were that pilot, would you state that you blew up 93? After the "let's roll" mentality is already rolling along?


How about the humble worker who has to place this weird looking bit of beat-up kit in a field in shanksville, only to see on tv in the months after 9-11 that self same bit of kit being claimed to be the fdr from flight 93? Does he still remain in his 'compartment' unaware of his part in the deception?


If 93 was shot down, who said anything about "planting" evidence?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatchesOHoulihan

In the case of flight 93, let's say the evil conspirators really did order the shoot down of the plane over shanksville. The pilot is just following orders and knows he has done nothing wrong, but when he opens his newspaper the next day, or in the following weeks, the story he will read will be the one about the passengers fighting back. The pilot may well be compartmentalised, as may be all the ground support crew (including the weapons crew - "Hey, you fired your missiles?") but they are not unaware of the story which is being reported afterwards.


I don't think - although maybe others do - that any 'evil conspirators' would be needed to order the shoot down. So insofar as people having to deal with their unintentional complicity - it's a non-issue. Pilots and ground crew often know each other by name and rank. And I can't imagine them 'debating' whether we should disregard operational security and tell the world - especially since they did their duty and nothing more extraordinary than that.


How about the humble worker who has to place this weird looking bit of beat-up kit in a field in shanksville, only to see on tv in the months after 9-11 that self same bit of kit being claimed to be the fdr from flight 93? Does he still remain in his 'compartment' unaware of his part in the deception?


Good point. Unless the 'evil conspiracy' theory is in place, I can't imagine someone 'planting' evidence, unknowingly.

Here's an question that I think bears examining.

Why has the FDR data only been made available (even when 'presented' to the families) partially? I mean 'redacted' transcripts, edited voice data? What is up with that? Is there something we 'wouldn't understand' in the data, or in the voice recordings that we 'shouldn't' hear or see? Not that they are hiding an otherwise normal data set, nor concealing awkward conversation segments? Have they ever explained that? It just seems to beg the question, what are we not seeing or hearing?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Vne in a jet that size is well below the 600Kts it was traveling going down, so yes, it was exceeded...anytime in the KC-10 we had the clucker go off, it WAS NOT good...inspections, etc had to be done...typically, at altitude, about 300kts indicated is all it took to get that...at altitude, that's about 430KTS true. Also, the 'G' limit for big airliners isn't that much...3.2 for the DC/KC-10....when you're reefing it up, 3 G's can sneak up on you in a hurry...not to mention that with a Negative 'G' pushover, your generators have a nasty habit of going offline...so ya got "Pilot Hadji" racking up and overspeeding the aircraft as well as, I'm sure, over 'G'...and you have a disaster cocktail in the making.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Maxmars, I'm not actually questioning you, what set me off was the 'I have a friend who's got a (weak) clearance and so I know the plane was shot down.'

As far as I'm concerned, the plane could have been shot down (I would hope that it was, that means the government DID something). If it was, there's probably 100 or so that know first hand. Probably less than that, and then double that who know 2nd hand and even more 3rd hand.

But then, it could easily be explained as routine training if anyone came down short a missile.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PlaneIP
 


Hi - interesting and informed post, if you are who you claim to be. Would you be prepared to go on the record under your own name? Sorry to put you on the spot, but this would lend your testimony incomparably greater credibility. One of the rules of investigation is you never, EVER give any credence to an 'un-named source.' They ain't worth squat, and are synonymous with fraud.

Most investigators who have been to the site, looked at the facts and interviewed witnesses agree there is no evidence of a F93 shoot-down which stands up to scrutiny. Then there is the FDR. Those who continue to propagate the shoot-down theory as a rule are unaware of USAF movements or the precise whereabouts of potential interceptors on 9/11, and do not understand in detail the SOP of air defense interception.

I think for most people, there might be more credibility to a 93 shoot-down theory if information were placed in the public domain detailing:

1. What missile/s exactly - what type/s, and some debris of said missile recovered from the site which we could all see and examine

2. Fired by what aircraft? From what airbase, flown by which pilot, alone or accompanied?

3. Fired under whose orders? Flight commander, squadron commander, higher up? Orders need to go right through the chain of command. Names, testimony on the record needed

4. If there was a shoot-down, why manufacture a cover-story involving passenger mutiny communicated by multiple cellphone calls by a number of different passengers to their wives/husbands/relatives, all on the record? And how and why would the FDR be fabricated? Why bother? Most prople would support a shoot-down in the circumstances. Indeed it would have given credibility to the effectiveness of the Air Defenses, and deflected a lot of subsequent criticism. For the shoot-down theory to have any legs, this anomaly needs to be explained

5. A shoot-down would have involved dozens or hundreds of people, from pilots and flight/squadron commanders to armorers, ground crews ('ah...one of your live warhead missiles is missing, sir. You must have fired it...') base personnel, flight controllers - ad infinitum. If we are supposed to believe every one of these people have remained silent for all these years, we need to see some evidence explaining this - especially as there is no reason why it should not be admitted to in the first place.

If there HAD been a shoot-down and it HAD been admitted, then we can be certain that these forums would be full of CTs claiming '93 shoot-down a lie!!! Passengers actually brought the plane down!!!' year after year, ad infinitum. You know how it works.

Learn to paragraph, by the way. It makes your posts easier to read.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlaneIP
There were 4 tankers airborne that day...2 in Northern NY and 2 off of the coast about 30 miles south of Manhattan. We were the only game in town that day close to everything.


So, you are saying that on 9/11, anyone could have flown unhindered for as long as they wanted to because the only place to refuel a fighter was around manhattan? Am I getting this right?

No offense, but that sounds like the most retarded policy out there.

"We're sorry Georgia, we can't offer any kind of protection because our fighters have to fly to manhattan first to refuel and then they can't even make it to Georgia anyway because they would run out of fuel before they got there without having to turn around and refuel near Manhattan".

Does that make any sense to anyone? Unless I'm taking this wrong.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PlaneIP
 


First, and most importantly - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

This kind of feedback was my 'dream scenario'. Now I feel MUCH more comfortable with the events that occurred. (BTW I'm a 12-year USAF vet myself - more along the lines of the RC variety than KC - if you get my drift. Hence, I am more familiar with the other guys command and control processes and platform performance envelopes, not ours)

If the aircraft was stressed and broke up mid air - THAT would adequately explain the debris trail. Although why it's like pulling teeth to get that fact explained is beyond me. I don't believe that the loss of attitude control would be missed in the FDR. But I concede your knowledge in this area would far exceed my 'understanding'.

I know that you have a solid set of facts to minimize the possibility of a shoot down. And one shouldn't be needed if the FDR reflects mid to high altitude structural failure.

I still feel that lacking analysis of the wreckage itself, we can't definitely confirm, or exclude, the possibility. Several joint-ops (some classified, some not) were 'theoretically' ongoing in the corridor in question, so I wouldn't call it a stretch to maintain that other aircraft, not deployed from 'Regular AF' facilities may have been operating at the time. This would not be my first avenue of investigation though because if classification were an issue, policy would dictate denial anyway, and the trail would end right there. Plus those 'ops' wouldn't necessarily been of the 'armed' variety.

While some maintain that 'eyewitness' testimony is without value, I am reticent to discount the numerous 'sightings' of at least one other aircraft operating in the area. But then, we might as well be looking into a UFO scenario.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Again - What about the family members? Why are they not raising bloody hell and demanding formal investigations, follow-ups, hearings etc into everything that happened that day.


200+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

patriotsquestion911.com...

They ARE speaking up. You guys just aren't listening.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Civil Air Defense wasn't exactly a priority at the time. Planes didn't sit around fuelled and armed ready to go at a moments notice. There were very few alert aircraft available anywhere in the country.
I won't debate how "retarded" the practice was, but there are several good reasons against having masses of fighter's on standby around the clock. In retrospect, there are good reasons to have more available than were.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlaneIP
so ya got "Pilot Hadji"


Not that I'm disputing anything this poster says, but isn't it quite obvious what biasness this poster may have?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
('ah...one of your live warhead missiles is missing, sir. You must have fired it...')


You make good points mostly.

But, we have had nuclear warheads being mishandled and misplaced in the not-so-distance past.


Air Force investigates mistaken transport of nuclear warheads ...


www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html

I can believe one "live" missile could go unnoticed. Right?

p.s. It is interesting that the link to the CNN story is unavailable now isn't it?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher

Hi - interesting and informed post, if you are who you claim to be. Would you be prepared to go on the record under your own name? Sorry to put you on the spot, but this would lend your testimony incomparably greater credibility. One of the rules of investigation is you never, EVER give any credence to an 'un-named source.' They ain't worth squat, and are synonymous with fraud.


Wow, I would be very reticent to divulge MY information. Particularly in this venue and context. If anyone agrees to this I would suggest it would be ill-advised. Nevertheless I agree, we could all be full of malarkey, and somewhere down the line we have to agree that a certain level of 'suspension of disbelief' has to be endured or we are all just wasting time.


Most investigators who have been to the site, looked at the facts and interviewed witnesses agree there is no evidence of a F93 shoot-down which stands up to scrutiny.


My problem is that there seems to be a consensus that hose investigators were not entirely 'diligent' and their investigation broke several key protocols in the name of 'expedience'. I have a problem with that (Yeah, I know, it's MY problem, I get to deal with it)


Then there is the FDR. Those who continue to propagate the shoot-down theory as a rule are unaware of USAF movements or the precise whereabouts of potential interceptors on 9/11, and do not understand in detail the SOP of air defense interception.


This is true as well, but very few people can credibly claim that we have ALL he data (in fact - we really don't on some levels)

I think for most people, there might be more credibility to a 93 shoot-down theory if information were placed in the public domain detailing:


4. If there was a shoot-down, why manufacture a cover-story involving passenger mutiny communicated by multiple cellphone calls by a number of different passengers to their wives/husbands/relatives, all on the record? And how and why would the FDR be fabricated? Why bother? Most prople would support a shoot-down in the circumstances. Indeed it would have given credibility to the effectiveness of the Air Defenses, and deflected a lot of subsequent criticism. For the shoot-down theory to have any legs, this anomaly needs to be explained


This is the Rock of Gibraltar argument for me. I don't see the purpose of concealing a shoot down. And yet, getting the official reporting agencies to address this even cursorily is like asking them for personal financial information. That's why I suspected that should a shoot down have occurred it was probably by a classified platform that wasn't 'planned' to carry out an intercept role.


If there HAD been a shoot-down and it HAD been admitted, then we can be certain that these forums would be full of CTs claiming '93 shoot-down a lie!!! Passengers actually brought the plane down!!!' year after year, ad infinitum. You know how it works.


Oh yeah,we know it. I haven't been a member for a long time so I was wondering, has anyone ever claimed a UFO shot down flight 93? I figured by now someone would have 'gone there'.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


lol I'm sure if you dig deep enough you'll find out that shapeshifting grey reptiloids from the planet optimal prime brought it down with their invisible cloak beam.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Civil Air Defense wasn't exactly a priority at the time. Planes didn't sit around fuelled and armed ready to go at a moments notice. There were very few alert aircraft available anywhere in the country.
I won't debate how "retarded" the practice was, but there are several good reasons against having masses of fighter's on standby around the clock. In retrospect, there are good reasons to have more available than were.


Even so. Say Russia comes in to attack Florida (even from the outside). Do our fighters have to fly up to manhattan to refuel and fly back to Florida? Not making the trip there and back because they wouldn't have the fuel capacity to do so? It just doesn't make sense that there were only 4 tankers and they were ALL situated around Manhattan.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

You are from NSA and you propagate the 9/11 truth false information about exercises; You need to study 9/11 more, before you try to spread that false information about the exercises.

COMSAT? , you throw around a term about communication security, and I guess you were in the USAF and know how a shoot down on 9/11 would go down. A lot of people involved would know, there is no secret to intercepts, and a lot of people out side the USAF would know. Shoot down would be on RADAR tapes and voice tapes as the fighters try to get 93 to land at a airport away from cities, the shoot down would have happen after the intercept than never happened. The planes were over DC. What type of missile was used? You are in the NSA, they would know right? What missile was used?

Yes, now I remember, our secret codes, bravo zulu whiskey is the secret shoot down order. We use code. Yes, now I remembers. (s) BZW XAT TSS. There you have it the shoot down order, confirmation, and the rest of the story. Sweet.

I was in the USAF on 9/11, there was no missile lost, no stand down order, and this fake story is funny.

Fake stories of missiles missing. No names, no idea what missile missing was, no tail numbers, no nothing. Hearsay, fake, and backed by nothing. Just passengers on flight 93 taking action, after they figured out what 9/11 truth has failed to do for 6 years, figure out 9/11.

Facts, the engines on 93 were running when it hit the ground. No problems noted, no missile hit. The missile hit would be on the voice recorder, it was not. No missile was missing, no planes were over PA with missiles in time, they were over DC and NYC. You better dig deeper at NSA. 9/11 truth with another hearsay, fake story. I'd expect NSA to have facts and evidence, but not knowing the truth about the exercise on 9/11 is not a good start.

Boring truth, no shoot down; this was a fake story.
Of your claims, please:
Name the exercise that the jet were previously scrambled on 9/11 for.
Explain why it interfered with response times.

But since I hate to ask questions I can not answer I will tell you.
The planes were not scrambled previously on some exercise, you can not name. It did not interfere with response times.

Vigilant Guardian was scheduled to start at 0900, but the first call from the FAA came in, and the exercise was canceled. Darn, no exercise stopped NORAD, in fact the preparations for Vigilant Guardian had extra people manning the positions.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
reply to post by Maxmars
 


lol I'm sure if you dig deep enough you'll find out that shapeshifting grey reptiloids from the planet optimal prime brought it down with their invisible cloak beam.


I KNEW IT!! I have only one question, was Elvis with them?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Wow, I seem to have upset you. (by the way it's COMSEC) No I'm not from NSA - I worked there years ago. I was out before 9/11/2001. You might have missed the earlier post, but I was not involved in any way in operations involving 'shooting down places' or 'combat tactics'. Also, the code to which you refer are alien to me. Perhaps a foreign agency might be better acquainted with how that's done here.

I only mention the NSA because I know these people aren't in the business of 'disinformation'. That's the realm CIA, DIA, OSI, etc. We are in the business of 'facts' and their dissemination. Nothing more, nothing less. And of course, I can only speak of my particular experiences, not those of other branches.

But this is neither here nor there, you seem to think that I have something bad to say about the service(s)? Not I. I am proud to have served and will gladly smack down anyone who thinks that we are the 'evil' in the American saga.

Any way. I must adjourn for a bit. Come stick pins later.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join