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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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.


I don't know what assets were available, Griff. I have no idea. I do know that KC-10's were based out of McGuire or Travis. That was about it. I think there would've been ANG -135's out of Pittsburgh, but again ANG aircraft weren't really pulling 24 hour alert as far as I know.
If Cuba attacked Florida, you'd have tanker support from Robbins and MacDill. You'd hope for support out from RES and ANG units out of Tinker and Birmingham, but it would really depend on what's available. You'd rely on aircraft from Key West NAS (hopefully not knocked out) or Tyndall and Eglin for intercept, so they wouldn't need to fly up to NY for tanker support, no.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by _Del_]




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
"A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair." 1

"Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area: "Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site "

Wow....I don't know how anyone could read those two paragraphs and still believe the plane crashed. There are only two logical possibilities, either you are in on it or your not mentally competant and therefor shouldn't be allowed to socialize.....seriously

Edit.... qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com...

link someone posted earlier.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by Sheeper]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheeper
 


I trying to reach an aeronautical engineer friend of mine to see if he can get some of his geekier buddies to figure out, considering flight speed, etc, at what altitude the 'break up' of flight 93 would have occurred. This won't be scientifically acceptable I'm sure, but if the plane suffered structural failure from being 'stressed' by extreme maneuvers we might see if this can loosely fit the FDR-based model. Again this won;t be any kind of proof, but it's a start.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Again this won;t be any kind of proof, but it's a start.


It's far better than what we have now.

What we have now:

"It happened. You don't need to know the details. Move along."



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


That would be very helpful in getting a better understanding. One thing is certain though, it would have to be way up there when it came apart for there to be a 6-8 mile debri field. And if it did split apart in the air then why not make that the official story, why the secrecy and vague explanation of the massive debri field. The major public is led to believe that is crashed in that field when the truth would be that it crashed all over the damn place. I'm amazed how people are so easily fooled, sometimes I feel like people are brainwashed but a small percentage are immune and I'm just lucky, but then that sounds egocentric and paranoid which I'm not.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
A couple of things to go over...
1) The tankers were out of McGuire...2 AD...2 Res. Those were the only tankers up that AM...I believe the ANG were flying that day, but not in the vicinity of the happenings...I believe they were either further south or west.
2) No...I can't get into details here, but lets just say that after 9-11, ALL major cities were covered as soon as possible...so no, you wouldn't have to fly all the way from Fla to NYC to get gas.
3) I have ABSOLUTELY no bias towards anyone...except the bastards that did this and their counterparts who are still fighting. I have MANY (And I do mean many) friends of arab decent...they are some of the most kind people I've ever met (63 different countries and counting) and they would ALL give you the shirt off of thier back if asked to. (That's how I have a Breitling pilots watch...my mistake, but HAD to take it to not embarass him)
4) As for "What altitude the breakup would occur"...it's not about altitude...but about speed and abruptness of the flight control deflections. You can overspeed an aircraft at ANY altitude...remeber...airliners ARE NOT stressed like a fighter, nor should they be...they're NOT DESIGNED that way...they're designed for strength, sure...but also light weight, but you MUST make smooth and calculated flgith control inputs to not do damage to the aircraft.
5) As for a debris field, probably true...I've seen the preliminary FAA reports...yes there were parts here and there...that's what happens when you start bending metal and then ripping it off in chunks or pieces (As can happen when overstressing the aircraft) The police/FBI/Whoever cordoned the areas off and wouldn't let anyone near them...standard proceedure for an accident...I've been on the investigating team and had to deal with STOLEN PARTS...that right...STOLEN...before we got there!!! And this was at a FATAL accident (13) where you could still see the bodies/parts burning in the wreckage...Not a sight I'd wish on ANYONE to see.
6) That takes me to my next point...the CVR...has anyone here ever HEARD a NO #E CVR of a plane and crew that's about to auger in? I have...and with friends of mine in the cockpit...it's GHASTLY to be kind...and still have dreams of it from time to time...that is probably the reason that the "Unedited" version has never and HOPEFULLY EVER will be released...The strain on the familes and friends would be DEVISTATING!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PlaneIP
 


You know what you said would be an acceptable explanation(if I understand you correctly, kinda mumble jumbly)....if it had came from the govt. Instead they put one big cloak on everything which makes me question their motives.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Sheeper]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by driveshaft08
Donald Rumsfeld "The plane that was shot down in PA" talking to the
troops in Iraq.


Okay, for all of those questioning what Rumsfield said.... the above is NOT what I was referring too originally on the first page of this topic. Neither was any similiar comments he made before press members at a press conference. Specifically, I was referring to one video I have seen. Search for the video (sorry, firewall at work here blocks all video, or I would do it) where he is speaking to civilians at an Elks Lodge, somewhere in the southeastern part of the US. In it he clearly states, " the plane WE shot down over Pennsylvania"! Collectively, he said, "we", which would (to me) coming from the mouth of the Secretary of Defense include the USAF or any armed services branch that is tied into the Pentagon and DOD. Not that it really caused any alarm for the passengers as they had all been unconscious since shortly after takeoff.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 


If they were knocked out how did they manipulate the calls to the family consistent with the time the plane went poof? Not second guessing the govts involvment in shooting down the plane but what proof is there to suggest the people didn't really try to take over the plane?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sheeper
 


It was all faked. It is called digital voice manipulation. With the audio recording of several minutes of voice of an individual it is then possible to digital manipulate that voice into uttering anything you can imagine, probably even in near real-time! Your question of how it was planned to coincide with Flight 93 is simple, with the proper hacks into the telecommunication systems ready to go beforehand. A demonstration of this type of technology was given in late 1999 at NORADs headquarters in Colorado. Fake, just like the plane was under the control of a civilian pilot or supposed terrorists, it was not. With technology and computer aided control and manipulation anything is possible.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by percievedreality]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   


A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair." 1


Debris field at Indian Lake was composed of scraps of paper and
aluminium coated plastic insulation. Problem is bunch of idiots measured
distance using MAPQUEST - it is 8 miles by road. I dont know of any
debris which travels by road - it is about 1 - 1 1/2 straight line distance
and wind was blowing from the crash scene. Kooks keep repeating
this without checking further....



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Sorry to point out the obvious but, yes, that is a generalization. A tired one. It really was never stated by me, but you appears to be mocking the comment based on the perception you 'translated' from the original comment:
You are right, I interpreted that wrong. My apologies.



The production company used information provided by the government to create that award-winning celluloid 'hoax'. I call it that because it was released without regard to the objections of many - if it were strictly for entertainment purposes it would be no problem, but this was a production with a definite non-entertainment purpose.
I don't understand how a made-for-TV "award-winning celluloid hoax" has any bearing on what actually happened.
Who objected? What were their objections? How does it support a shootdown theory?



I suppose the reason you ask is because the answer might influence your position?
No. I'm asking this question because no witness of the crash, or the crash scene, has stated their expertise in deciphering the difference between a normal crash and a shootdown.




Do you feel that finding the tail section and debris miles away, is somehow consistent with the 'almost vertical' nose dive told to the press? (Perhaps it 'popped off' and bounced? - sorry [/sarcasm off)
No one has stated that the tail was found miles away. The only witness I recall mentioning the tail said that it was in the trees down range from the crash site.
I don't care what the press said, it has no relevance with what actually happened. Why do you use the press instead of the NTSB data?


I don't follow that one should require training to 'note' the inconsistency? Do you contend that the contradictory FDR information is 'cherry-picking' as well, or is it incorrect, or a lie? Would you think that the observations of a random group of unassociated personnel 'on the scene' was justifiably 'discarded' due to the fact that they were 'untrained'? (You never made that statement - so it's not intended to put you on the defensive - the comment was to address 'that tired old argument' that the only people who's questions can be taken seriously are those of 'experts'... who somehow never ask the question anyway)
There is nothing contradictory about the FDR. There are a few witnesses that contradict the altitude of the airplane. None of them mention a shootdown.

Why didn't the pilots for 9/11 truth use this guy's quote?

Charles Sturtz, who lives about a half-mile from the crash site, said he saw the plane in the air for a few seconds, and saw no smoke, heard no explosions before the crash and saw no other planes in the sky.Source
You don't have to answer that question because I already know why.





I am VERY open to convincing.

Let's hope so.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I don't care what the press said, it has no relevance with what actually happened.


It's quite funny actually that you say the above.

And then yet, use a press source that is paraphrased and not an actual quote.


Why didn't the pilots for 9/11 truth use this guy's quote?

Charles Sturtz, who lives about a half-mile from the crash site, said he saw the plane in the air for a few seconds, and saw no smoke, heard no explosions before the crash and saw no other planes in the sky.Source
You don't have to answer that question because I already know why.


Notice that there are no quotation marks?




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
What ever happened with the picture that the lady had of the mushroom cloud? I remember a Canadian fellow that called her on the phone instead got her daughter and she said the photo was a fake and that there was no plane crash or mushroom cloud as claimed. Anybody remember that?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Yeah, I remember that. Val McClatchey's infamous Flight 93 photo. Here was an interesting thread on the photo and subject from before.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While I am posting here, I should clarify my earlier thoughts. Yes, Flight 93 was shot down. Not by the PTB, on the contrary, remember Cheneys' stand down order? Defying orders from the VP, a group of AF members (Happy Hooligans) did their job. They realized that this was a sham, these were not "war games" but real deadly attacks on America. Imagine if that plane had got to its target (Congress), the martial law many of us fear, would already have been invoked. Honorably, those involved in the shoot down were decorated later on the following year for their efforts. Notice how that was not reported by anybody.

There were no people aboard, it was a drone plane. As Loose Change explained, correctly IMO, the real Flight 93 landed in Cleveland (remember that this AA plane was seen and photographed at Chicago's OHara in 2003), the passengers were herded into the NASA building and then??? The drone took off on its way to the DC, the location of its' target being the Congress/Capital building. The county coroner in Sommerset County has never seen a victim or any forensic evidence, it was all handled by the federal government, imagine that. You see it was a coup de'at involving the use of the military forces of this nation to accomplish their goals hindered by a counter coup de'at from within.

Similiar events at the Pentagon and at the WTC, drone planes (with nosecone warheads), no people aboard, remotely controlled. What happened to the real 4 flights that day, you ask? As I said before, the people on board were all incapacitated (pilots included) and they were remotely flown out over the Atlantic Ocean, where they were shot-down in the war-game being played that day involving hijacked airliners. The pilots probably had been told they were not real commercial flights, with no passengers, being remotely controlled, and thus they completed their mission.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors folks.

Do not worry though, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are keen to the deception of that day (and that of the nuclear weapon mishap from August 2007 Minot/Barksdale) and are prepared to retaliate in the event that these elite neocon scum try their next operation, which probably includes a domestic attack followed by an attack on Iran (with the support of Israel). Great times we find ourselves living in, yes?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Notice that there are no quotation marks?



Yes I did notice that there were no quotation marks. You may have missed the fact that I wasn't using his account to prove no shoot down.

I was pointing out how the pilots for 9/11 truth cherry picked three or four eyewitness accounts and ignored the ones that doesn't help their theory.




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by percievedreality
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


... What happened to the real 4 flights that day, you ask? As I said before, the people on board were all incapacitated (pilots included) and they were remotely flown out over the Atlantic Ocean, where they were shot-down in the war-game being played that day involving hijacked airliners. The pilots probably had been told they were not real commercial flights, with no passengers, being remotely controlled, and thus they completed their mission.
...


I had never heard this before(although I haven't watched most 9/11 documentaries). Do you have a source that says that pilots shot down planes over the Atlantic during the war games that day?

[edit on 18-4-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I was pointing out how the pilots for 9/11 truth cherry picked three or four eyewitness accounts and ignored the ones that doesn't help their theory.


How does a paraphrased snippit from a press source equate to eyewitness testimony?


[edit on 4/18/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 


One thing to add that is interesting. Remember the plane that crashed in Queens like a week after 9/11? The number of passengers on that plane was the exact same number of passengers on the 4 planes on 9/11. Just another possibility of what happened to them.

BTW, notice how alot of the passengers and flight attendants were confirmed by DNA. Could have been used as a way to plant DNA evidence at the scene of 9/11. Broken and burnt from an airplane crash and all.



[edit on 4/18/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
But if the REAL planes were all remote controlled out over the atlantic, why not just remote control those planes into the targets? Wouldn't that be easier than having eight remote control aircraft and crash four OTHER planes into targets and then have to shoot down the REAL aircraft later?
I know the government is notoriously inefficient, but doesn't this seem remarkably so even for them?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join