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.

 

Third NSA Source Confirms: Flight 93 Shot Down By Air Force Jet

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Third NSA Source Confirms: Flight 93 Shot Down By Air Force Jet


www.opednews.com

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 Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There are also reports that one F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews.

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related Thread - maxmars

[edit on 21/4/2008 by budski]




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Of all the 911 stories, this was perhaps the most poignant, with a film being made about it almost before the dust had settled, and people from all over the world admiring the bravery of the passengers who stood up to the terrorists who had hijacked their plane.

Or did they?

This is apparently the third NSA source that has stated that the airliner was actually shot down - which somewhat contradicts the official story.

My problem is that everything that bush&co have said is so full of holes that I find myself unable to believe anything they say.

www.opednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This is something the government has no right or reason to hide from we the people. If this is true (which I doubt) that an America AF jet shot this down and the government then lied to us. Those who decided to lie to us are criminals. There is no security reason for them to lie to the American people about a US jet shooting down a hostile aircraft even if it contained innocent civilians. This would only be done to cover up responcibility for doing so and should be a criminal act if true (the lie and cover up not the shoot down).

[edit on 21-4-2008 by Xeven]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Again, just going off the evidence I've seen - the debris from the "crash" was spread out over 8 miles.

I'm no expert, but it seems that if the plane had crashed into the ground, there would not be debris scattered over such a wide area.

Of course, I could be completely mistaken, but there ya go



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I always thought there was something fishy about the original official story.

-The cell phone calls, without any static interference, and the cell towers managing to keep up with the signals?

-If they did rush the cockpit, they had a heck of a while to gain control of the aircraft. I don't care how bad you are at flying, everyone knows the theory behind the controls, at least well enough to level the aircraft off. So what, they gained control, and had a good cheer while going nose first into the ground? Come on.

-If they didn't manage to rush the cockpit, well, the aircraft would have continued on to it's intended target.


It's not upsetting that the aircraft was shot down. The military did what was necessary to save further lives on the ground.

It is however upsetting that the government would lie bold faced about it.

The question is why.
We are able to accept that the plane was shot down... so why lie to us?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Don't forget Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue.

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 shot down

I believe the passenger's did try to do something but maybe just a little too late.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
This is something the government has no right or reason to hide from we the people. If this is true (which I doubt) that an America AF jet shot this down and the government then lied to us. Those who decided to lie to us are criminals. There is no security reason for them to lie to the American people about a US jet shooting down a hostile aircraft even if it contained innocent civilians. This would only be done to cover up responcibility for doing so and should be a criminal act if true (the lie and cover up not the shoot down).

I really agree! Thats a horrific thing to do, lie to the people about something that they did to try to protect more people....But like you said, If they did lie about it, there must be something behind it....something more. It's kind of sad that its 8ish years since it happened, and there are still questions about what REALLY happened that day!




Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Xeven
 

Again, just going off the evidence I've seen - the debris from the "crash" was spread out over 8 miles.

I'm no expert, but it seems that if the plane had crashed into the ground, there would not be debris scattered over such a wide area.


I must agree with you as well. Like you, I am no expert, but that just doesnt add up. If it were hit by a missle, it wouldnt drop right away, it would start to nose dive, and glide for a bit, before hitting anything.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
For additional related content (and comments), you might want to take a look at "Flight 93 Shootdown - Once kooky theory - now confirmed (again and again)" wherein you'll find some interesting takes from military and pilot types as well as the usual erudite commentary from our community.

Thanks budski, you are much better at this than I am.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Maybe they were attempting do something till the gov't interfeared. I would not be surprised. I had never heard this theory. Thanks for posting!



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Here's the thread

Hope this proves helpfull to all, and thanks to Maxmars for the link



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski


Of all the 911 stories, this was perhaps the most poignant, with a film being made about it almost before the dust had settled, and people from all over the world admiring the bravery of the passengers who stood up to the terrorists who had hijacked their plane.

Or did they?

This is apparently the third NSA source that has stated that the airliner was actually shot down - which somewhat contradicts the official story.


The whole point about "patriotic movies" is twisting history...



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If the aircraft was shot down does this change anyone's stance on the 9-11 cause?

Did terrorists actually hijack planes that day and the AF stopped only one.

or

Is it still a false flag and the PTB decided to add a story of a heroic act to help smooth the whole thing over. Why shoot down part of their own plan. Word of the passenger take over (if communication was possible) was going to affect the plan?

or

The targeting of the White House or Congress got overridden at the last minute by some one. May be the other jets did reach the targets or the military got upset after the crash at the pentagon.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
If the aircraft was shot down does this change anyone's stance on the 9-11 cause?


I thought the 9/11 cause was the quest for full disclosure and transparency.


Did terrorists actually hijack planes that day and the AF stopped only one.


Since people died in either event, isn't the important fact to know WHY they died? For a false-flag, corporate venture, bungled emergency management?
Shouldn't we know THAT? The political/diplomatic "use" of the event is there for all to see. Wouldn't the point be to know whether the event was 'planned' to support the agenda of invasion or just a convenient event to that end?



Is it still a false flag and the PTB decided to add a story of a heroic act to help smooth the whole thing over. Why shoot down part of their own plan. Word of the passenger take over (if communication was possible) was going to affect the plan?
or
The targeting of the White House or Congress got overridden at the last minute by some one. May be the other jets did reach the targets or the military got upset after the crash at the pentagon.


Maybe it was confusion all around. But the answer to these questions is evidently NOT a priority for them. 7 years later and they're still stonewalling.




top topics



 
4

log in

join