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.

 

Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So there is no official report released on this yet, correct?


NO not correct. I have shown evidence of the document and i have posted the FOIA request on public e-mail to get a declassified copy of the document.




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Great find ThroatYogurt!

Debris was found "7 or 8 miles" away. That sounds familiar.

And this '7 or 8 miles away", was in what direction away????

IN the flight path TO crash site, or THROWN past it???

Big diff.

You see, you wish to ignore eyewitnesses that stated the plane was on fire and upside down before crashing to earth. How could that be if official story is accepted?

Explain how Todd & Co "charged the cockpit" while plane was upside down, please.

Or call the two Vietnam vets out hunting liars, the ones that stated they heard and saw the plane. On fire. Upside down. Leaving a debris TRAIL 8 miles long.

Nice try, but no cigar.






posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Although this crash is not exactly like the crash of flight 93, the explanation of details is eerily similar to that of the crash on 9-11 in Shanksville.


Excellent post, TY. This pretty much is the nail in the coffin for those that think there was no plane in the flight 93 crash site. They whole scene looks identical.

Two thumbs up!


yeah super job. if it were not for the body and plane parts, it would be exactly the same. if only it were not so different. if only that had not been covered quite well already. if only reading this very thread were enough to show you, with pictures even, how different the two sites are.
awesome thread!!! way to go!!!! remind me not to buy from your coffin factory, i believe it is a feel nails short.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by alupang
 


Hi Alupang,

The plane was not reported on fire prior to its impact. If there are some eyewitnesses to this, please post them as I have not seen them.

The plane was not upside down when the passengers decided to take over the plane. The plane flying erratically, and crashing was a result of of the passengers attempting to breech the cockpit.

Thanks,

-TY-



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please repost the information explaining what the document contains in detail.
Thanks.


See my thread "NSA archives: Flight 93 shot down"

As stated i have seen the document and it states that Flight 93 was intercepted.

onlinejournal.com...

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

The NSA CRITIC, according to sources who have seen it, is about five or six sentences, and paraphrasically states:

“Two F-16s scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base at [likely 1336 Zulu]. Civilian airline hijacked. Over state of Pennsylvania civilian airliner was ‘intercepted’ at (Latitude and Longitude of intercept].”

Several follow-up CRITICs are appended to the first United 93-related CRITIC. One follow-up CRITIC mentioned a possible fifth hijacked plane flying south from Canada that was near the Canadian-U.S. border. Another CRITIC states the plane ‘intercepted’ over Pennsylvania was ‘confirmed civilian.’

On April 16, 2008, WMR reported: “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.”




[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]


That information states that 3 sources say flight 93 was shot down yet it's only said it was in 1 source. The other sources only state that it was "intercepted" which is different from being shot down.

Also if the government shot down flight 93 this tends to re-enforce that islamic terrorists actually did hijack those flights and it was NOT an inside job. If it was an inside job, there would be no reason to shoot down the plane then hide the fact that it was shot down.

Now on to the next point. Assuming you can get this supposed document declassified and can present it in court, you will be a HUGE target. You understand that right?
I would assume those in power who you've brought out into the light of day, will not just go quietly into the night.
They will attempt to destroy your life.

You understand all this right?

And forget keeping your job at the NSA. We know what happens to whistle blowers under the bush administration.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


As stated i have seen the document and it states that Flight 93 was intercepted.


No, you haven't. No such CRITIC report exists and you are not being honest.

Please look at this "Online journal"

Bolding is mine:

onlinejournal.com...

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports,......

The NSA CRITIC, according to sources who have seen it, is about five or six sentences, and paraphrasically states:

.......
......

On April 16, 2008, WMR reported: “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. .........



"WMR reported" Is Wayne Madsen. The same guy that wrote this on-line Journal.

Mr. Madsen states sources; anonymous sources. He has nothing to back them up.

If you go to the link Ultima provided, it shows more and more lies from Madsen. He uses quotations yet does not supply sources.

It reminded me of reading the National Enquirer. "A friend close the couple said they were fighting and doing drugs all night."



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The other sources only state that it was "intercepted" which is different from being shot down.


Even if it was only intercepted that still debunks the oifficial story that no planes were near Flight 93.


Also if the government shot down flight 93 this tends to re-enforce that islamic terrorists actually did hijack those flights and it was NOT an inside job.


I never stated it was an inside job. I am looking for the thruth.


You understand all this right?

And forget keeping your job at the NSA. We know what happens to whistle blowers under the bush administration.


Thanks for showing that you are paranoid of the government, must be the reason you want to live in a save media fed fantasy world instead of thinking for yourself.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
No, you haven't. No such CRITIC report exists and you are not being honest.


Either show me evidence that no such CRITIC exists, or admit that you are the one not being honest. As stated i have seen the CRITC and know it does exist.

What are you going to do when i get a copy of the document and post it?You know you will be proven wrong and cannot back out of your false statements.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
]Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123



Also if the government shot down flight 93 this tends to re-enforce that islamic terrorists actually did hijack those flights and it was NOT an inside job.

I never stated it was an inside job. I am looking for the thruth.

Actually in other threads, you have argued that WTC 1 and 2 were both demo'd instead of brought down by the planes that hit them which means "INSIDE JOB".


You understand all this right?

And forget keeping your job at the NSA. We know what happens to whistle blowers under the bush administration.

Thanks for showing that you are paranoid of the government, must be the reason you want to live in a save media fed fantasy world instead of thinking for yourself.


It's not being paranoid. Look at what's happened to the last few government whistle blowers. Re-assignments, firings, prosecution, etc...

Why do you think that wouldn't happen to you? Do you have that much power at the NSA????

[edit on 24-8-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima... you are claiming to have seen it. You my friend are the one that has to support you claim. I am calling BS on this. That is my opinion at this time. Until you prove otherwise...it is what it is. B.S.

You said that you are not calling 911 an inside job, but you have clearly stated that you have seen a document that shows the government is covering up the shoot down of flight 93. Correct?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
and know it does exist.

What are you going to do when i get a copy of the document and post it?You know you will be proven wrong and cannot back out of your false statements.



Well I know this question wasn't meant for me but I'll answer it anyway.

If you really get this supposed document, get it into court, into the media, and out to the world, I'll do my best to be the first one to thank you and I'd even consider you a hero.

The more likely scenerio is that this is a John Lear-esque claim in which nothing will ever come of it. A lot of smoke but no flame.
I hope I'm wrong thought !



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You said that you are not calling 911 an inside job, but you have clearly stated that you have seen a document that shows the government is covering up the shoot down of flight 93. Correct?


Gee you mean you do not the difference between an inside job and some propaganda?



Originally posted by jfj123
If you really get this supposed document, get it into court, into the media, and out to the world, I'll do my best to be the first one to thank you and I'd even consider you a hero.


Well it will be satisfaction enough to get it on forums like this to at least get believers like you to wake up and start thinking for yourself instead of living in a media fed fantasy world.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


OMG...

You would rather post the document here.. than....

oh God.

Forget it.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You would rather post the document here.. than....

oh God.


I would rather start here to get immature people like you thinking for yourself for once and stop being a media robot.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You said that you are not calling 911 an inside job, but you have clearly stated that you have seen a document that shows the government is covering up the shoot down of flight 93. Correct?


Gee you mean you do not the difference between an inside job and some propaganda?



Originally posted by jfj123
If you really get this supposed document, get it into court, into the media, and out to the world, I'll do my best to be the first one to thank you and I'd even consider you a hero.


Well it will be satisfaction enough to get it on forums like this to at least get believers like you to wake up and start thinking for yourself instead of living in a media fed fantasy world.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]


So you're going thru all this to post it on ATS and you're going to call it good?
You're not going to newspapers? TV? International reporters? etc..????? Why wouldn't you do that? If you don't, what's the point of wasting all this time??



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well... we see you have your priorities straight.

Have at it cowboy.

Thing is... the document until you have a copy of it. DOES NOT EXIST.

Your claim to have seen it is disingenuous and you know it. If you have seen it, you would have stated specifics regarding it.

I would like to point out that the link you provide (as noted above) does not say anything about a shoot down. Only an intercept. From the same document you are claiming it was shot down.

So, you have seen the document. Was it intercepted then shot down? What happened?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're not going to newspapers? TV? International reporters? etc..????? Why wouldn't you do that?


What do you think the media is going to do with it?

They will not publish something that debunks thier own story.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I would like to point out that the link you provide (as noted above) does not say anything about a shoot down. Only an intercept.


Just the fact of Flight 93 being intercepted debunks the official story that stated no planes were near Flight 93.

I have also asked for the follow up reports in my FOIA that stated about the plane coming back wwithout a missile.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You're not going to newspapers? TV? International reporters? etc..????? Why wouldn't you do that?


What do you think the media is going to do with it?

They will not publish something that debunks thier own story.


There are many media outlets that would of course publish it. Here are a few sources
The Raw Story
Moveon.org
Crooks and liars
Guardian Unlimited
Center for American Progress
Infowars
The Drudge Report
Black Listed News
The Hill
Think Progress
AmericaBlog
AfterDowningStreet
Project censored
NPR
Not to mention foreign news media that would love to embarrass the US
or even
YOUTUBE-I hear they have a few subscribers.
Also any of the mainstream media that supports Obama would love to get ahold of something that would embarrass the republicans.

You'd think that somebody sooooo interested in the truth wouldn't be just interested in the truth for themselves but to get it out to others.

So you see, if you really were interested in getting the truth out there are quite a few outlets to do so.

If these sources aren't enough to get you started, let me know as I have a few HUNDRED more.

So when are you going to get started????



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
There are many media outlets that would of course publish it. Here are a few sources


But too bad no one really pays attention to any of those media outlets. I mean how many people really pay attention to the Enquirer?

What i stated is that none of the MAIN MEDIA SOURCES would not publish it.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join