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.

 

Dissecting the Flight 93 OCT...or should i say debunking it?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Now HERE is a question for you:

If Flight 93 was "shot down", what would that prove for the "truther" movement?

Let's dissect this logically shall we? As the "truther" claims go, all the aircraft were either remote controlled aircraft or smaller aircraft, or holograms, or whatever. Let's stick with remote controlled jet liners. So, in order to create a "terrorist" attack, the jets were "hijacked"(remote controlled).

So, three of the remote controlled "hijacked" jets crashed into their designated targets. The fourth one is to hit the White House or Camp David. But something goes wrong and it gets shot down. So, why did they have to shoot it down if it was under their control all along? Did they lose control of the plane and send out a fighter (an A-10, of all things in one claim, which is NOT a fighter jet and NOT meant for Air to Air combat: its a GROUND attack craft. It can be outfitted with Sidewinders but for self-defense NOT offense).

Ok, so if we are to assume that whoever was "in control" of "Flight 93" lost control, why shoot it down? Look, I'm no expert, but wouldn't common sense dictate that if you loose control of an aircraft meant for impacting a target, why not just let it fly out of control and let it crash on its own wherever that may be, in order to complete the "illusion" of a hijacked aircraft? And when the aircraft crashes on its own, it can then be said the people fought back and crashed, or the plane ran out of fuel and crashed (ala Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961)? You see, shooting it down would draw unnecessary attention (like from conspiracy folks). Let it crash on its own and BINGO, any loose ends are tied up.

But lets think for a moment: Here we have allegations of a plane shot down. IMO, if the USAF did shoot down a plane, that means that there WAS a direct terrorist threat from this hijacked aircraft. They shot it down AFTER the first three impacted their targets in NY and DC, and then tried to cover it up. Think for a moment: You just had a massive loss of life in two cities brought on by terrorists. NOW you just shot down one of our own passenger jets for the first time in US history, and what would that do for the rest of the nation, the fact that the US Govt just destroyed its own airliner? Never mind it was hijacked and headed for another target. What would the press say? What would be the public's opinion of Bush and the generals who ordered it? To add on top of three disasters committed by foreign terrorists a fourth one committed by our own forces? Why not try to cover it up and make a "heroic" story in order to at least give some comfort to the nation after the worst attack since since Pearl Harbor?

Don't tell me we have such inept planners who can't even think one step ahead. If this was an "inside job" by shadow government forces or whatever (NWO/Illuminatii/Mickey Mouse Club) do you really think they wouldn't be able to think ahead? I'm just an average 23 year old in college, who plays Battlefield 1942 and Command & Conquer for fun and works at a boring job, and I could come up with a better plan of attack that covers all bases in 10 minutes than the probable required 10s or 100s of professional planners that supposedly planned the 9/11 attacks?

Give me a break. For all intents and purposes, everyone claims how the Illuminati and the NWO have things planned hundreds of years in advance, all meticulously planned to work without anyone noticing until its too late, and here, they screwed up with such basic amateur mistakes that could have been fixed with just a few extra minutes of thinking logically and with common sense. I don't buy it for a second. IMO if they really are this inept, (the NWO/Illuminati/etc) I say, we have nothing to fear since an average college student thought up a better logical way to do this than they did.

In review the "mistakes" made that shouldn't have happened with some common sense planning before:
1.) Shooting down an aircraft that lost its connection to ground control, instead of letting it fly and crash itself.
2.) Using an A-10 Warthog to shoot it down (instead of an actual fighter jet using missiles 20 miles away without being seen)
3.) Covering it all up with a bogus story of heroic passengers with pre-recorded phone calls during the hijacking.
4.) If they wanted propaganda purposes, they could have just come and said they shot it down for necessary reasons, ie because it was hijacked.

Now in essence it seems to me, the "truthers" are the inept ones here as their claims of "inside-job" do not match with what happened when the incident is observed logically and with common sense. A hijacked passenger jet shot down in self-defense after three others kamikazied into buildings, and then covered up for obvious reasons, is far more believable than a remote-controlled airplane being shot down for whatever reason and then creating an entire fake back story and faked phone calls and etc.
Folks sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

NOTE:
I am not saying nor suggesting Flight 93 was shot down. I don't want certain people thinking this is what I said. I did not. This is a logical dissection of the claims of "shoot down" and ramifications of the idea for both the "truthers" and "those responsible". If anything, IMO a shoot down of Flight 93 in self-defense and cover up is more believable. But I am not saying this actually happened.

[edit on 11/1/2008 by GenRadek]




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
You just have to look at the pictures of the shanksville crater.


Just because you don't understand what high-speed plane crashes can do, doesn't mean you should believe what 9/11 Deniers want you to believe.

In fact you can interview any of the 1,500 investigators who were at the scene. But I'm confident that you won't. I am confident that no amount of evidence will ever convince you.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Now HERE is a question for you:

If Flight 93 was "shot down", what would that prove for the "truther" movement?


the united states government willingly and intentionally lied to the american public about the september 11th attacks and an active cover up regarding the attacks has been carried out.


Let's dissect this logically shall we? As the "truther" claims go, all the aircraft were either remote controlled aircraft or smaller aircraft, or holograms, or whatever. Let's stick with remote controlled jet liners. So, in order to create a "terrorist" attack, the jets were "hijacked"(remote controlled).


i'm sorry but you can't pick and choose my theory. perhaps you are unaware but i am not theorizing on the internet based on a few photographs and a couple of eyewitness one liners. i am hands on investigating this event in the town of shanksville for over 2.5 years. the only people who have spent more time talking to the witnesses that day are the fbi and the national park service but there isn't another person in this country who has spoken with as many witnesses as i. so please don't come to my thread and start attributing wild conspiracy theories to my name. i have made a 10 minute presentation of evidence. you can address that or start your own thread for your "theories".


So, three of the remote controlled "hijacked" jets crashed into their designated targets. The fourth one is to hit the White House or Camp David. But something goes wrong and it gets shot down. So, why did they have to shoot it down if it was under their control all along? Did they lose control of the plane and send out a fighter (an A-10, of all things in one claim, which is NOT a fighter jet and NOT meant for Air to Air combat: its a GROUND attack craft. It can be outfitted with Sidewinders but for self-defense NOT offense).


well i would say a successful passenger revolt would have blown the whole operation wide open long before anyone blew up wtc7. if you fail to grasp that then i cannot reason with you.


Ok, so if we are to assume that whoever was "in control" of "Flight 93" lost control, why shoot it down? Look, I'm no expert, but wouldn't common sense dictate that if you loose control of an aircraft meant for impacting a target, why not just let it fly out of control and let it crash on its own wherever that may be, in order to complete the "illusion" of a hijacked aircraft? And when the aircraft crashes on its own, it can then be said the people fought back and crashed, or the plane ran out of fuel and crashed (ala Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961)? You see, shooting it down would draw unnecessary attention (like from conspiracy folks). Let it crash on its own and BINGO, any loose ends are tied up.


you assume it would crash. i tend to believe that may not have been the case. had there been a successful revolt people on the ground would have found one way or another to insure the absolute minimum loss of life would have taken place.



1.) Shooting down an aircraft that lost its connection to ground control, instead of letting it fly and crash itself.
2.) Using an A-10 Warthog to shoot it down (instead of an actual fighter jet using missiles 20 miles away without being seen)
3.) Covering it all up with a bogus story of heroic passengers with pre-recorded phone calls during the hijacking.
4.) If they wanted propaganda purposes, they could have just come and said they shot it down for necessary reasons, ie because it was hijacked.


1) no proof that passengers/ground control wouldn't have insured a safe landing and not a crash.

2) no one has said an a10 shot down flight 93. i have not had positive identification other than confirmation not a falcon 20.

3) story doesn't have to be bogus and calls were from airphones.

4) they didn't want an investigation. shoot down = investigation.

get it yet?

now please try to address the op



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Just because you don't understand what high-speed plane crashes can do, doesn't mean you should believe what 9/11 Deniers want you to believe.

In fact you can interview any of the 1,500 investigators who were at the scene. But I'm confident that you won't. I am confident that no amount of evidence will ever convince you.


theres an 8 foot deep hole.

where's the 100 tons of plane?

"underneath it"?




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


The problem is that it keeps being claimed the plane is remote controlled with no people on board. Even if there were people on the plane how would they know the plane is remote controlled and is heading for a target? How would they disable it and fly it themselves? lol! You see how much more complicated this gets and implausible if you start making things up?

And if the plane was shot down because it was hijacked, what would there be to investigate? Of course there would be an investigation but not to see if it was remote control with no one on board. More like why did they shoot it down.

Please understand, I am just trying to put a different light on this. The purpose of a shoot down would have been to prevent it from hitting a 4th target. They cover it up for obvious reasons.

And I ask you now, what is the point of an A-10 warthog as some have described it? Did it shoot it down?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


There are plenty of other crashes where nothing is left either:
911research.wtc7.net...

now I suppose by your logic, these crashes didnt happen either because there is no recognizable debris? Come now.

Remember the Turkish Airlines crash in 1999?
news.bbc.co.uk...

The DC-10 crash in Chicago?
www.airdisaster.com...

DC-9 crash in Indiana 1969?
www.airdisaster.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


The problem is that it keeps being claimed the plane is remote controlled with no people on board.


really?

where?

by who?


Even if there were people on the plane how would they know the plane is remote controlled and is heading for a target?



so this is how disinformation works...? i post a video showing evidence the official story is false and you come in here and make # up about remote control planes and no passengers and blah blah blah.

you need to go watch the video and address the information presented in it. this thread isn't for your theories about what some people theorized 4 years ago and claim it somehow represents me or anything i have presented anywhere to date.

if you keep with your wild conspiracy theories and ignore the op further i will place you on ignore.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


OK so then what are we to believe? That it was in fact hijacked? Or what?

Because if you are saying it doesnt exist, please explain the debris found:
www.911myths.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


There are plenty of other crashes where nothing is left either:
911research.wtc7.net...

now I suppose by your logic, these crashes didnt happen either because there is no recognizable debris? Come now.

Remember the Turkish Airlines crash in 1999?
news.bbc.co.uk...

The DC-10 crash in Chicago?
www.airdisaster.com...

DC-9 crash in Indiana 1969?
www.airdisaster.com...


i didn't go through all your links because the very first one shows crash sites with tail sections and fuselage pieces and thousands and thousands of tons of debris at the crash site and others are very poor quality aerials. there is also only one photo taken from each crash. this too is very deceptive as the agents behind this site would intentionally seek out images showing the minimum amount of debris and claim it represents the site as a whole.

what would impress me is if you can show us debris from inside hangars during reconstruction of commercial airliners and then provide the same for flight 93 showing there was 90+ tons of debris inside that 8 foot hole. you do realize that if the government claims to have recovered over 90% of the plane that means it didn't obliterare or incinerate. this would include seats and those massive landing gear that weren't inside that 8 foot deep hole and everything else you would expect to find.

the plane can't obliterate and have over 90% of it recovered. the duh-bunkers act like its to be expected not to recover so much debris and the government says what do you mean we found over 90% of the plane in that hole.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


OK so then what are we to believe? That it was in fact hijacked? Or what?

Because if you are saying it doesnt exist, please explain the debris found:
www.911myths.com...


do you see the first post in this thread?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


Of course you didn't bother to look at the rest of the pictures. I mean why should you if they show a crash site with nothing much around it?
Oh wait, doesn't that mean sometimes the plane CAN be completely obliterated?

United Flight 585 also has a similar crater, although sadly I cannot find a larger image of it:
www.airdisaster.com...

Now, they did in fact find debris from a 757 which was presented at the trail, and oddly enough, it was accepted. There is a picture of them recovering an engine buried in the crater, (Unless you expect me to believe they pre-buried the engine for this occasion) and pictures of the pieces of the fuselage.

And yes, I did watch the whole little video and all I saw was a bunch of eyewitnesses all over the place with their accounts all differing from each other. Some admitting finding body parts, etc.

But no way, NO WAY does it prove anything that the OCT is "debunked" by you or anyone. Three witnesses mentioning extra aircraft is no surprise as maybe there were smaller planes shadowing the hijacked plane. But If you honestly think this video proves it was all a lie, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for ya! Real cheep too!



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And since you believe it's an "alleged" aircraft, I am confident that you would believe any serial numbers produced would only be "alleged" serial numbers, correct?

Of course it is an alleged aircraft, jthomas. It's alleged until it can be proven true.

You've failed to supply the serial numbers for the alleged wreckage and the alleged FDR. How do you expect me to believe that there was a plane, if you can't identify the alleged plane for me?

Your refusal to supply serial numbers and positively prove the ID of the alleged wreckage, is again, noted. Your handwaving, is again, noted. Your faith based argument that serial numbers are not needed, is again, noted.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz,

Contact UA and AA and ask them what happened to their planes.

Start with flight 77. I am sure AA would like to know where their 65 million dollar aircraft is.

or AA Flight 11 767 costs well over 100 million dollars

UA flight 93... 65 million

UA flight 175.... 125 million

Wow close to, if not over 400 million dollars in airplanes...

I would think these airliners would want to know where their airplanes are.

You parrot the same thing over and over you're starting to sound like Ultima.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz,

Contact UA and AA and ask them what happened to their planes.

Start with flight 77. I am sure AA would like to know where their 65 million dollar aircraft is.

or AA Flight 11 767 costs well over 100 million dollars

UA flight 93... 65 million

UA flight 175.... 125 million

Wow close to, if not over 400 million dollars in airplanes...

I would think these airliners would want to know where their airplanes are.

You parrot the same thing over and over you're starting to sound like Ultima.




Well realistically there was only ONE boeing 757 caught on camera. Flight 11's footage was too blurry to say exactly what it was but it was described by eye witnesses as being "smaller".

The evidence points to only one Boeing 757 crashing. The rest of the evidence can simply be fabricated.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Contact UA and AA and ask them what happened to their planes.

If they can prove that their airplanes were destroyed, as claimed, then why haven't they?

Is it that difficult to release a few serial numbers?



You parrot the same thing over and over you're starting to sound like Ultima.

Perhaps you don't like reading the same thing, as you know that it's a sticking point for official believers. Four planes allegedly crashed, but no-one has made a positive ID on them? Suspicious.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Well realistically there was only ONE boeing 757 caught on camera. Flight 11's footage was too blurry to say exactly what it was but it was described by eye witnesses as being "smaller".

The evidence points to only one Boeing 757 crashing. The rest of the evidence can simply be fabricated.


Again ... call the airliners... ask them what is missing from the 757 and 767 inventory.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

If they can prove that their airplanes were destroyed, as claimed, then why haven't they?


They don't have to prove anything to you. But, that's why I asked you to call them. You are one of a very small minority that question (or don't believe) flights 11,175,77, and 93 crashed as witnessed by thousands.





Perhaps you don't like reading the same thing, as you know that it's a sticking point for official believers. Four planes allegedly crashed, but no-one has made a positive ID on them? Suspicious.


Not true. You and others just ignore any evidence that upsets your fantasy.

[edit on 11/1/0808 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
so when you leave the enemies of truth speechless that means you've won.......right?


Classic conspiracy thinking. If skeptics don't respond, then I am right by default!

Laughable. No Dom, we are just loosing interest in 'debating' you. I can only speak for myself; at this point (in my opinion only) if you want to rant on for the next couple of decades some huge 9-11 conspiracy, have at it.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz,

Contact UA and AA and ask them what happened to their planes.

Start with flight 77. I am sure AA would like to know where their 65 million dollar aircraft is.

or AA Flight 11 767 costs well over 100 million dollars

UA flight 93... 65 million

UA flight 175.... 125 million

Wow close to, if not over 400 million dollars in airplanes...

I would think these airliners would want to know where their airplanes are.

You parrot the same thing over and over you're starting to sound like Ultima.




Applause applause. I was wondering when the almighty yogurt would show up and smarmily disregard the OP, attack someone for something, refute NOTHING, post NOTHING, inforom us of NOTHING, and somehow still have that attitude of someone who just made a cogent point.

Nothing in this post says anything in argument to the OP and you know it. It is a distraction and bad point. You know that too. I expect better than this from you, you are smarter than this. Usually, you can at least try to look like you are actually proving something somehow related to the discussion but you are not. Shoot down or crash, either way they lost their plane. So your argument falls flat against the OP. Not even a nice try, but thank god you showed up so I know the sun will still rise tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio
 


There are plenty of other crashes where nothing is left either:
911research.wtc7.net...

now I suppose by your logic, these crashes didnt happen either because there is no recognizable debris? Come now.

Remember the Turkish Airlines crash in 1999?
news.bbc.co.uk...

The DC-10 crash in Chicago?
www.airdisaster.com...

DC-9 crash in Indiana 1969?
www.airdisaster.com...


I looked at your pics. Nice finds. Great proof! You get a star.

Two links do not work but the other two do a great job of showing that no matter how bad the disaster, you can still tell something big and metal crashed there.

Did you seriously think these photos showed no debris? Perhaps you have a favorite you would like to show us?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join