It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

Regarding the context of this thread I believe this is fully relevant in many ways and provokes many more questions. The Slovak government admitted to planting of explosives to test screening proceadures but this was not "dummy" material...it was real.

Why would a government do this? The possible answers extends well beyond their "official" answer. It actually proves that governments do this and have the capability to plant then detonate explosives on aircrafts. If the answer is to "test" screening proceadures then just use an official individual, why use a private citizen?

This is an example of a nation's government comitting an act of terrorism because if this had been any individual you can be assured that they would have been a spectacular spectacle made out of the person and worldwide headlines also. Probably deemed another Al-CIA-Duh motive as well.


Government admits planting bombs

[edit on 6-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


Im curious, what does that have to do with Flight 93, or Shanksville? Nothing I can see, other than trying to show that a government (not the US) but a government would run a security check....

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Its just as relevant as this which was pointed out to me by a friend this morning:

Domain name WHOIS search for flight93.com.

Domain Name: FLIGHT93CRASH.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: registrar.godaddy.com...
Name Server: NS1.HOSTLAND.COM
Name Server: NS2.HOSTLAND.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 19-sep-2009
Creation Date: 18-sep-2001 >> Last update of whois database: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:34:22 UTC

reply to post by mikelee


Talk about grasping at straws. Someone took six whole days to register that name...to make sure they made money off of it.

Oh you got them NOW. That is a smoking gun if I have ever seen one.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Yea man, better call out the the conspiracy hunters uh? LMBO

Ever what the flight number was one hting is clear and that is it was shot down. Without a doubt.


"Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes... I--it was my advice. It was his decision."(Vice President Dick Cheney, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)


"That's a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the--given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was--I didn't hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done."(President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

Rumsfeld stated in a speech to US troops in Iraq (24 December 2004) that United Airlines Flight 93 was "shot down" on 9/11:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
(Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN.

reply to post by mikelee



Are we reading and comprehending the same speech???

...or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon...

He said the "people" who attacked in New York, and in the next sentence after the comma, he is STILL referring to those same "people". In one sense, I guess you could call the intentional crashing of United 93 a form of a "shoot down", (just as you could say your boss "shot down" your good idea at work...) but in the context of his words it clearly shows he's not talking about any Government shoot down, unless you wish to imply that his use of the words "the people who" meant he was talking about ALL of the attacks, New York, Pentagon and the failed UA 93 effort as being initiated by forces within the Government.

If so, then you are going to lump in with some of the most extreme fringe conspiracy "believers" that exist. Without, I might add, any corroborating evidence to support that position.

reply to post by weedwhacker
Hiya weedwhacker

Why the hell you aren't a FSME in this section beats me. It's the bad side of 'ATS Town' for my tastes and I usually steer clear. Way too many crazies around here. Time to time I dip in. When I do, you're in here fighting the BS.

It's like the bad movies where one good guy fights hordes and even when sweating, bloodied and bored...he carries on going. Evil Dead II? Clash of the Titans (skeleton battle)?

FSME is well-deserved! Take it easy.

You know, its funny. Life. Humanity. Stupidity. Ignorance. All of that and more. I had friends that went to this very place as firefighters and EMTs. I also had friends go to NYC to help there with the same purpose in mind. When they returned and were telling me the horror stories and showing me pictures they failed to mention a government conspiracy or cover-up of any kind at either site. Maybe it just escaped them at the time as they probably forgot most of the horrific things they saw on the short drive back to the outskirts of Pittsburgh. Or maybe not.

It is easy for you kids to stand up and cry conspiracy and I fully understand that this site is ABOUT conspiracies, but you have NOTHING to base what you say on. You never cleaned up a plane crash. You never picked up pieces of peoples bodies from a field or street and dumped them into plastic containers. Get some actual fact, or go back to reading and not posting.

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but I had my friends who are grown men literally cry telling me the stories of the things they saw. These are hardened men who have put many long years into their firefighting and medical services. Men who have seen some of the worst things a human has to see on a daily basis and they are weeping like women into their laps because they simple do not have any other way to release the horror they saw. Conspiracies are one thing, but you need to respect the people who lost their lives and the people who are still alive but lost theirs as well. Until you spend the day picking up tiny bits of people from a field or street, shut the hell up about things you have know experience in.


If you want to see some pictures of the wreckage, ask any of the dozens of fire departments and EMT crews that helped from all over the country. I am sure mostly all of them took pictures of some fashion as my friends did. As far as I know, the photographic documentation process of accident scenes and such is an unspoken standard across the board for department use. They would probably share them with you though if you polite and respectful.


I would make a new thread for this post, but I am not allowed yet.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You

You know, its funny. Life. Humanity. Stupidity. Ignorance.

There are hundreds of firemen, police officers, first responder that will disagree with you because you weren’t there. They speak of demolition explosion at the WTC, why do you think the FBI hid the oral reports and records of over 500 firemen, polices, first responders, and offices workers from the WTC, from the 911 commissionaires the media and the public.

Thank G-d for the NY Times they sued the city of NY for this information under the FOIA:

Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers
The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006. 2

911research.wtc7.net...

Oral Histories
Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions
On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders. The interviews were conducted between October of 2001 and January of 2002 under the order of New York City's fire commissioner at the time of the attack, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve first-hand accounts of the attack. 1
The New York Times published the oral histories, and provides an index of PDFs of the interviews here. 2 The Times converted a subset of the interviews into text files. 3 The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*
• Explosions
• Dust clouds
• Ground shaking
The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.
• WTC 7 collapse foreknowledge

911research.wtc7.net...

Perhaps, all these creditable NYC firemen, polices officers, first responders, and office workers are all lairs. What do you think?




[edit on 23-1-2010 by impressme]

Sorry, but I trust my lifelong friends and brothers in uniform over anything online. Granted they were not there at the very time it happened, but they still mentioned more than once pieces of planes and such. The scene at NYC was less of a topic than shanksville as the latter is closer. While I suppose it IS a possibility that there were explosives involved, I still believe the guys I grew up with over anyone on the net. I mean, those guys and I all ran with the same departments and EMT base. They would have no reason to hide something from me or lie to me. I am quite sure the government did not pay them to tell me they saw plane wreckage or bodies!

As I have never researched this heavily because of my unwillingness to wade through mostly baseless garbage, is it not a possibility that gas lines in the building blew up all the way down after being exposed to the intense fire from the fuel burning? That may sound like explosives going off. Especially considering there were probably dozens of lines all over each floor which all meet at certain places and meet at one central place as well somewhere.

Is it not also worth mentioning that any gas lines probably had some sort of safety system in place to delay explosions or fires in case of an emergency? I had read somewhere that the building was made to withstand a certain plane for a certain period of time after crash, so I am just using common sense and not known fact to throw some stuff your way.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You

Oral Histories
Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions
On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders. The interviews were conducted between October of 2001 and January of 2002 under the order of New York City's fire commissioner at the time of the attack, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve first-hand accounts of the attack. 1
The New York Times published the oral histories, and provides an index of PDFs of the interviews here. 2 The Times converted a subset of the interviews into text files. 3 The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*
• Explosions
• Dust clouds
• Ground shaking
The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.
• WTC 7 collapse foreknowledge

911research.wtc7.net...

As I have never researched this heavily because of my unwillingness to wade through mostly baseless garbage

“Baseless garbage”?

Then, why are you in here posting against something you have never researched?
I don’t know who you are for all I know you just made up your story.

Most people are looking for the Truth to what really happened on 911, like to see creditable records, recorded testimonies, from creditable experts or sciences. Do you have anything to offer besides a story?




[edit on 23-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You

Granted they were not there at the very time it happened,

Thank you for your opinion, but we are looking for facts.

“Baseless garbage”?

Then, why are you in here posting against something you have never researched?
I don’t know who you are for all I know you just made up your story.

Most people are looking for the Truth to what really happened on 911, like to see creditable records, recorded testimonies, from creditable experts or sciences. Do you have anything to offer besides a story?

Yes alot of conspiracy stuff is baseless garbage. I never said it all was and I never said what you provided was. I have been looking at it. Also, I HAVE looked into 9/11 related stuff, but really not that far. Conspiracies hold my attention, but not when it is baseless and you have to admit that alot of conspiracy stuff is baseless or at least looks very much so from many angles.

To be fair, I never said I did. In fact I remember putting something to the effect somewhere, but it may have been another thread, its been a long day. The bottom line is that I understand I have no proof to offer immediately just the stories and horrors relayed to me. However, I did mention asking fire and ems bases that were there to see their picture documentation on it to see the aftermath. It is proof, but not in my hands and nothing I can link to. But it is there and I am sure if you ask the right base in the right way, you will get results. I recommend some beer and maybe some food. After a long day of risking our lives, we as well as other men are suckers for that.

The internet is amazing, but not all inclusive I'm afraid.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You

 

Granted they were not there at the very time it happened,

Thank you for your opinion, but we are looking for facts.

It isnt fact I will give you that, but it isnt opinion either. I guess the only opinion I have on 9/11 in its entirety is that it was hell and noone but the brave people who helped and were there know that. Not even me. But the thing is, I do not pretend to know!

Seems to me though that the gas line thing is pretty feasible.


[edit on 23-1-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]

"The bad side of ATS"...Spare me the self righteousness pal.

Until the NTSB can get their story straight with the FBI it looks like nothing is ever going to be cleared up regarding this.



From the NTSB records section Chief. Even the NTSB cannot establish what happened on 911 to an aircraft, be it shot down, hijacked then intentionally crashed or whatever. It can't be determined. Know why?

Because its a cover up....Thats why. otherwise they would have determined it already. This proves further that the OS is a lie!!


NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.


[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by weedwhacker


But...it was still shot down either way. Thats been the point the whole time. You and two others keep on arguing this with me and it AIN'T the point.

Plane > Shot > Down > Out > Of > Sky

[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee

But...it was still shot down either way.

Please, mike, do NOT play loose and fast with terminology.

I "accepted", reluctantly, that the choice of words "shot down" could be taken many ways.

ONE example is the idiomatic use of "shot down" to describe a person's aspirations, as I used in example, when another in a position of 'authority' uses that perception of authority to quell someone else's goals....

That was only ONE example.

To infer that a man like Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a brilliant spokesperson, or statesman, would be to refuse to accept all of his OTHER missteps(**) while in the public scrutiny, so he isn't such a great role model to hang an opinion on.

(**)---just Google anything to do with "Donald Rumsfeld Speeches" to get examples of how poor a speaker he was---


Back to, your statement:

But...it was still shot down either way.

-----is NOT supported in fact, in any WAY, SHAPE or FORM!!!!

Sorry.

Originally posted by mikelee

"The bad side of ATS"...Spare me the self righteousness pal.

Until the NTSB can get their story straight with the FBI it looks like nothing is ever going to be cleared up regarding this.



From the NTSB records section Chief. Even the NTSB cannot establish what happened on 911 to an aircraft, be it shot down, hijacked then intentionally crashed or whatever. It can't be determined. Know why?

Because its a cover up....Thats why. otherwise they would have determined it already. This proves further that the OS is a lie!!


NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.


[edit on 23-1-2010 by mikelee]

LOL. Basically what I understand that to say is that THEY ARENT THE ONES MAKING THE FINAL DECISION. You even quoted it yourself, kid!

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

Why?

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You


First I'm not a kid so spare me your smart alack comments. Second your interpreting it wrong. The NTSB is not going to make any determination based upon the fact I was able to discern from talking with them in that the FBI is holding the evidence and they can't make such a determination. Pretty clear if you ask me. Now if you try and "read into" the statement with anything else than what it states, then your interjecting your opinion into an official decision in which your not part of which makes it speculation.

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You


And...

What you posted is already known. So, whats the point of your post then?