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.

 

Of COURSE they’re not going to admit shooting down Flight 93…

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I’ve heard many, many claims over the past few years that Flight 93 COULDN’T have been shot down, based purely on the argument that there would be no reason to conceal it from the public. The argument goes thus:

“The airforce is SUPPOSED to shoot down planes in such circumstances! They would be considered HEROES for protecting thousands of lives in the potential target! The public COULDN’T be angry at the government for shooting down Flight 93, given what was likely to happen with it! Therefore, the government DIDN’T shoot down Flight 93, and conceal it as a crash, because they’d have NO REASON to hide the truth!”

But would they?

After reading a lot of information surrounding the demise of TWA 800, I’m not so sure.

Here’s a challenge… read the following link about the TWA 800 incident.

whatreallyhappened.com...


Read it properly – follow the links included, watch the short animations, see how the official government sources reacted during the incident and after, and see how the ‘official story’ changes and morphs, and the great lengths the government has gone to in an attempt to conceal what really happened…

…and then ask yourself – “If the government went to such extraordinary lengths to hide the fact that TWA 800 was the result of a missile, which was most likely gross human error or a terrible accident, WHY WOULD THEY ADMIT TO SHOOTING DOWN A PLANE ON PURPOSE, regardless of the events surrounding it?”

Gross human error or tragic accident – deny and cover up.
On purpose – tell the truth about it? No chance…

Whilst this doesn’t answer whether or not Flight 93 was shot down, I think the simple comparison of these two events can clearly put to rest the notion that if it HAD been shot down, the government would have no reason to try to hide it. I think this might also shed more light on the much-talked about ‘slip-of-the-tongue’ from Cheney or Rumsfield…

Food for thought.

Rewey




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
There were standing orders to shoot down any hijacked aircraft. Thats the only food i need to fuel my thoughts on the matter. Either they disobeyed the order, or they obeyed it and covered it up. Either way its a travesty. One that can be pinned squarely on uncle sam.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Nothing was shot down because nothing crashed.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I watched show they were asking the FAA should we scramble jets, the guy he didn't know, and everybody left. Don't know if he was the janitor or what. Looks like anybody would have known the procedure. He better thank the heros on flight 93 if that plane had hit its target



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
To those who think a plane was shot down in Shanksville, where do you think it was shot and where do you think most of it landed?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
To the OP,thanks for making the same point I have making for years now.There is no way anyone in the federal government would be willing to go before the american public and admit that the USAF shot down a plane full of civilians and terrorists the outrage would spell the end of far too many careers and let's be honest here there are many politicians and military personnel who made their names from that day.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I think you have to also think of the possibility that they shot the plane down, only to find out very shortly afterwards(by the relatives) that at the moment they decided to shoot down f93 the passengers were trying to take the plane back.

Or it may also be that they(the passengers) took back the plane from the hijackers and were in the process of securing the cockpit (supposed missing, last three minutes of black box). When the fighter pilot having no clue about what had just taken place followed orders and shot down f93.

If any of these two scenarios had taken place you can bet your last dollar they would have buried the knowledge of the shoot down. They would have ran with the story; that the hijackers crashed it during the takeover. Which is obviously what we're told today.

One thing I have always noted is that if we were going to shoot down that plane there was no better place to do it. There is absolutely nothing but rolling hills, no better place to down a large passenger jet. Not to mention there were no deaths on the ground.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
I think you have to also think of the possibility that they shot the plane down, only to find out very shortly afterwards(by the relatives) that at the moment they decided to shoot down f93 the passengers were trying to take the plane back.

Or it may also be that they(the passengers) took back the plane from the hijackers and were in the process of securing the cockpit (supposed missing, last three minutes of black box). When the fighter pilot having no clue about what had just taken place followed orders and shot down f93.


Hmmm... good ideas. They wouldn't have known until they located the FDR, so maybe that would take some time... Perhaps someone made contact on the plane's radio, which wasn't sent through to the airforce in time?

Rew



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
I’ve heard many, many claims over the past few years that Flight 93 COULDN’T have been shot down, based purely on the argument that there would be no reason to conceal it from the public.


Thus, the reason why the truthers have such horrid difficulties convincing anyone of their claims. It specifically says in the 9/11 commission report that the order WAS given to shoot down flight 93 by the White House (I.E. by Bush and passed on to Cheney), and it would have been shot down had NORAD found it. When reports were coming in that flight 93 had crashed, the White House originally thought it *had* been shot down. They admitted all this in public to the 9/11 commission so nothing at all was concealed despite your claims to the contrary.

Of course, the truthers never know this becuase in their world of delusions revolving around conspiracies within conspiracies covered up by more conspiracies that they've built for themselves, they brush off the 9/11 commission report as a pack of lies and they don't even bother to read it, leading them to ask stupid questions like this that have already been answered years ago. Only to the conspiracy people does it ever make sense that researching 9/11 means actively avoiding reading material directly related to 9/11.

Whatever their true motives really are, learning the truth behind the events of 9/11 certainly ain't it.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Thus, the reason why the truthers have such horrid difficulties convincing anyone of their claims.


It was pysically impossible for the alleged cell phone calls to have been made from flight 93, period. There weren't enough cell phone towers in western PA to initiate the calls. I don't care if you believe the claim to be honest. It's researchable. If you would take the time to visit your public library to confirm this fact you will be convinced. you won't do that however, and so the difficulty is not my burden.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join